My column in this week's The Stranger is up!
The Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the federal ban on medical marijuana should make a lot of Republicans nostalgic for Barry Goldwater, the late Arizona Senator known for his outspoken libertarian conservatism.Read the whole thing.
It's referring to the 6-3 decision in Gonzales v. Raich -- where O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas were the 3 conservative dissenters. Not because they support medical marijuana necessarily, but because they still believe that the interstate commerce clause does not grant Congress the authority to legislate everything under the sun.
(speaking of Constitution-bending judicial activism -- don't get me started on today's ruling that eviscerated the Fifth Amendment and abolished private property)
And back to the point of my The Stranger column: At the time I wrote it I wasn't aware of George Will's column from last September "A Goldwater Revival", but George and I are thinking along the same lines.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 23, 2005 03:25 PM | Email ThisThis is one of the worst decisions for property rights in our history.
The dissenting opinion says it well:
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner whowill use it in a way that the legislature deems more bene-ficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to
2 KELO v. NEW LONDON O’CONNOR, J., dissenting
wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amend-ment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.
From the dissenting opinion:
"Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit. In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London’s city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors
and employees are privately appointed."
This will probably mean that the fight against the criminal CAO confiscation will fail.
Were I one of the petitioners, were I being forcibly evicted from my centenarian domicile, I would hire dump trucks to bring in tons of sludge and toxic waste. Let the new owners clean it up.
What a horrible abuse of eminent domain. King County wants to emulate New London.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on June 23, 2005 03:47 PMThe order of importance is:
Government
Friends of government
little people
others
Liberals only wish us to think they care about the people. What they care about is power, powerful government, and ability to control our lives from womb to tomb.
My praise goes out to the conservatives on the Supreme Court who rebuffed the development industry that traditionally owns Republicans.
Now watch as Republicans and Democrats in King County and Washington respond to their masters in the growth empires with takings like we've never seen before.
I hope I'm wrong, but I've come to expect the worst from government and have rarely been proven wrong.
Posted by: Mike on June 23, 2005 04:19 PMTo the topic of Kelo, make sure you put your city and county councils and commissions on notice that eminent domain issues will be very carefully watched and actively opposed should they stray any further from where they are now (too far already, imo).
I am crafting a letter to my mayor and city council, and plan to comment during public comment periods at the council meeting, and county commission meeting. Put them on notice.
Meanwhile, keep the pressure on our federal electeds to support SCOTUS nominees who respect the 5th Amendment.
Posted by: jimg on June 23, 2005 04:48 PMThey have the nerve to act surprised, though. Guess they never heard of unintended consequences.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 23, 2005 05:05 PMAny person who will be running for any public office should be pinned to the wall and asked if they did/did not support the decision that the SCOTUS handed down today. No bobble head answers accepted.
Mel
He said he had attempted to craft a legislative solution in favor of the property owners a few years ago, but lost when the Republican Congressman from the Connecticut District that included New London, opposed his bill.
Needless to say, we're scared to bits down here in Oregon just as you in Washington are.
There IS a solution, however. It is political, not judicial. I've concluded justice is pretty much dead in this country. However, a strong, organized electorate can still make waves. Witness the Washington election contest (I know the bad guys won, but w/o Stefan, other bloggers and talk radio it wouldn't even have gotten that far), Oregon's Meas. 37 and the Calif Gov Schwarzenegger, for examples.
The people are conservative and pro-property rights - it is the politicians, both Repub and Dem, and liberal and conservative, that fall down on the job. I'm hoping the people will wake up pretty soon and take charge again.
Whatever happened to the idea, the dream, of liberty?
We have lost something essential this country. When I was a kid, we were much less worried about telling others how to live.
And, what the hell is up with this stupid vote in the House to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to ban flag burning!!
That is the most stupid thing I've heard in a long time. Next thing you know, 10 years from now, we will have far lefties amending the Constitution, banning all sorts of types of speech.
DON'T TOUCH THE CONSTITUTION you freaking idiots.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 23, 2005 05:38 PMThis is absolutely an outrage!
Posted by: fire_one on June 23, 2005 06:01 PMAn armed revolt over this one incident might be a wee bit of overkill. Let us not blow this out of proportion. Enough folks on both sides are appalled enough by this that it could (and should) be used to the advantage of property rights advocates to pass legislation and/or get decent judges on the bench to prevent this sham from happening again.
Besides, if it's .30-'06, I'm going to assume your rifle is bolt action (unless it's a really well taken care of M-1 Garand). Not really effective in this day and age of standard issue M4's and MP5's.
Posted by: Mike H on June 23, 2005 06:22 PMWhat's up with this amendment to ban flag burning?
Is that nuts, or what?
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 23, 2005 07:30 PMBanana - it doesn't ban flag burning. All it does is allow Congress to ban the desicration of the flag if it wants to. I know, argueing semantics, but it isn't an out right ban, and if Congress later decides that such a ban is idiotic stupidity, the can repeal it with a simple majority.
Posted by: Mike H on June 23, 2005 07:49 PMOkay, this whole line of discussion is starting to give me the creeps...
Posted by: Mike H on June 23, 2005 08:08 PM-Thomas
ps...Thanks Stefan!
Posted by: misplaced texan on June 23, 2005 09:52 PMLet's follow the reverse logic--Tent City can now be confiscated, disbanded and turned back into privately-owned housing that 'serves the public interest' by landed taxpayers paying for schools, governments, etc.
To repeat my other post, will someone's (property) assessed value (market price) recent increase of 48% be equally respected when they are 'compensated' in a 'taking' of their WA property? I doubt it.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 23, 2005 11:47 PM
My rant on Kelo:
http://pullonsupermanscape.typepad.com/pull_on_supermans_cape/2005/06/ive_been_thinki.html
Forgive me that I have a difficult time explaining how I feel about it :)
Posted by: MC on June 24, 2005 12:21 AMSorry for the cross-post.
Please launch a post on the Supreme Court ruling yesterday. This ruling has direct local implications, and anyone who thinks our Constitution is going to protect us doesn't know what has already been done along the same lines. Hell, they don't know our Supreme Court if they feel safe.
A thread will provide an opportunity for people to share why we are in such trouble this morning.
And we are!
Posted by: Mike on June 24, 2005 08:43 AMYour question to your self is this: how long the leash of government--a creation YOU made to serve YOUR better interests. Like the Frankenstein creation, it is the sum total of what you created and gave powers--good AND bad. Reign it in, or be its servant.
Will some historian or grad student intern read these posts & threads someday and wonder??
Shark--I take a historical pompous attitude and think our threads will someday be famous--is this our 15 mins of delusional fame or just Michael-Jacko wannabe dreamings? Don't Tread On Me!! (DTOM!!)
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 24, 2005 09:19 PMThe Court has elsewhere recognized “the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic,” Payton, supra, at 601, when the issue is only whether the government may search a home. Yet today the Court tells us that we are not to “second-guess the City’s considered judgments,” ante, at 18, when the issue is, instead, whether the government may take the infinitely more intrusive step of tearing down petitioners’ homes. Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
From Page 53 of the KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL.
Posted by: StephenR from Houston on June 25, 2005 09:36 PMSome of you may have favored the outcome of Gonzales v. Raich, but it was the same nine fools in a different combination that utterly destroyed the Constitution in Kelo et al. And it was for the same reasons; the pattern is clear: Individual americans are slaves. Well-fed, even pampered slaves, but slaves nonetheless.
Our government, both parties, and the whole political class is utterly, irretreivably corrupt.
GO OSAMA! And take the "other Washington" with you!
Real Americans are better off with all of them gone.
Posted by: third party voter on June 26, 2005 09:54 AMIt was FIVE fools. Four justices ("the radical right wing" HA!) got it absolutely right.
David Irons for King County Executive and any Republican for King County Council. We just need one more Republican on the KC Council to beat the CAO and start to reverse this evil in both rural and urban areas. The CAO in this county drives the movement for high density in urban areas by disallowing development in the rural area so that all future growth must get crowded into the urban area. The Democrats all voted for the CAO and all the Republicans voted against it. The Republicans fight for our property rights. Now, Kelo is right up Seattle's alley; they can really get those high-density buildings done now with Kelo in place. No problem!!
Getting Republicans into office will reverse everything, or else we revolt.
It is the same in the City Councils. They already have plans in place for high-density and control of your land. Check with the Seattle Planning Department.
So get out and volunteer to WORK to get a Republican in, whether you like them or not. The Democrats are not the party for the small people. They used to be in your grandfather's time.
Posted by: Small Property Owner on June 26, 2005 05:36 PMPress Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.