Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Property Rights Died Yesterday (Bob Lonsberry)
http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=1687 ^ | June 24, 2005 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 06/24/2005 5:41:24 AM PDT by jigsaw

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: lmailbvmbipfwedu

Sad to say, but with 3 years of GWB and Rinos and Liberals, left and possibly 2 appointments to the bench, I see things getting worse, not better

Then HILLARY will step in and SAVE THE DAY!!!

I need a drink...


41 posted on 06/24/2005 6:28:32 AM PDT by AirBorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ChinaThreat

It is not time to stack the court, it is time to take away their power completely. It is time for a rebirth of this nation.


42 posted on 06/24/2005 6:29:09 AM PDT by jeremiah (Patrick Henry said it best, give me liberty or give me death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
That's a damn good idea.

Someone else came up with a better idea...seize through eminent domain the homes of the Chief Justices who made this ruling and build something on their property.

43 posted on 06/24/2005 6:29:40 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

Do the Supremes realize how much blood will be spilled over this? It paints people into a corner. The only recourse is to slaughter the selectmen --- at least as history is guide, that will happen in case after case. I strongly advise against such bloodletting. But how else will a farmer protect the legacy of many generations? He has no hope in the courts. And without that hope -- despair, hate, bloodshed.


44 posted on 06/24/2005 6:30:40 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw

Isn't it time that well meaning citizens go to Connecticut and exercise some of our other rights?


45 posted on 06/24/2005 6:31:44 AM PDT by jeremiah (Patrick Henry said it best, give me liberty or give me death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

Sad,sad day for all.Where is the justice in this decision?

Some much for the little guy who is simply trying to provide for his/her family. The whole issue boils down to an over used cliche: Money Talks. Perhaps someone should write a song....(sarcasm)


46 posted on 06/24/2005 6:31:53 AM PDT by jos65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chris1
I pray he gets his head out of his A@#$%. He seems like a shadow of what he once was.

Let's see, he is trying to protect the American Family through a Marriage Amendment. He's trying to protect us from Al Queda via the war on Terror. He is trying to save Social Security for future generations. He is trying to get an Energy policy passed so we will have fuel for your car and your home and where you work.

And all this with the dems, liberals bucking and kicking all the way. The Liberal media want him impeached at every turn. You might offer some real prayers for the man instead of just hate.

Leadership is a friendlessness place and the thousand knives of Washington have been out against him since 2000.

If he buckles under the pressure, we all will know it.

Pray some real prayers such as God give the President wisdom from above to deal with our enemies from without and within. Give him wisdom to persuade our people to follow righteousness and to eschew evil. Give him principals from above to hold fast and not waiver. In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

Presidential Prayer PING!

47 posted on 06/24/2005 6:36:16 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chris1

I agree.

He used to be a fighter - what the heck happened?


48 posted on 06/24/2005 6:40:23 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
I can.

As I stated yesterday (and people had real trouble with this), the PRECEDENTS in American history go all the way back to the "mill acts" of the 1830s. Justice Thomas addressed this, sort of, but not very well.

First, when you combine the "mill acts," the American Revolutionary notion of property taxation to prevent large estates from building up, and "squatter's rights," you created in this nation a bias for development. It is NOT just this one act or city action that is at issue here, but the whole American predeliction for development.

Second, given that---and that courts are REALLY hesitant to overrule 170 years' worth of judisprudence (i.e., say, "no, the courts have all been wrong all these years), the USSC was likely to rule for the city.

Third, what we as conservatives then need to get realistic about is that PROBABLY (I haven't looked at the arguments, but I'm guessing) the homeowners' arguments were from a purely private-property standpoing---which is where most Freepers come down. That argument was the wrong argument legally in this case.

What the homeowners should have done was to base their case on the fact that they had "developed" their property; that homes contribute more to the "public good" than do malls (and here I would have brought in a bunch of econometric models to show that these malls usually fail and COST the city money; that improving homes was CONSISTENT with squatter's rights and the mill acts. Instead, they fought against these trends on grounds of "pristine property rights." (again, as best I can tell, esp. looking at Thomas's dissent).

Realize that there is a deep-seated American preference for development and for penalizing "barons" who just sit on their land, and that whatever legal arguments the homeowners made needed to stem from that, not from (what I think are right) Constitutional claims of "pristine property ownership.

Can you see what I'm saying here? I think the lawyers for the homeowners blew it, and that it would have taken a remarkably radical court to overturn so much established law.

49 posted on 06/24/2005 6:41:39 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

No, they DO have excellent grounds to resist---but the argument has to be different than, "It's my property."


50 posted on 06/24/2005 6:42:18 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AirBorn
Well, think about this: the American reaction to English land barons was "squatter's rights" and property taxes. The latter penalized you for NOT developing land, because developed land was viewed as in the "public good." We (esp. Jefferson) did not want "land barons" in America. So what this created was exactly the decision that the Court came to.

Conservatives need to re-think their approach to this, and quit basing arguments on "it's my right" and start basing the legal arguments on "it's my right and it's a public benefit that I have that right." If we do that, we'll win.

51 posted on 06/24/2005 6:44:39 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw

State's rights were lost 2 weeks ago, now private property. the second amendment is our last hope of saving ourselves, that is until the SCOTUS takes it away too. It is indeed a sad, sad day.


52 posted on 06/24/2005 6:47:23 AM PDT by WV Mountain Mama (Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
There has NEVER, EVER, been "absolute property rights" in American, and quite the contrary, we established "squatter's rights" and property taxes specifically to DENY large landholders such "absolute" rights. In America the theory was always DEVELOPMENTAL rights superceded "absolute" rights. That's why squatters could claim land that a "baron" had not visited in 7 years to throw them off of---because he wasn't using it or developing it. Likewise, prop. taxes were a REVOLUTIONARY concept designed to make people give up land they weren't using.

The legal arguments here were absolutely wrong-headed in my view. The homeowners could have won, but they needed an approach that emphasized that PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is in the "public good" and that having a mall built would have HARMED the "public good" and given evidence to prove it.

53 posted on 06/24/2005 6:48:00 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Keep singing the talking points while Rome burns.


54 posted on 06/24/2005 6:49:40 AM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AirBorn

Just one thought

REMEMBER MEIGES FIELD..............


55 posted on 06/24/2005 6:51:30 AM PDT by lmailbvmbipfwedu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael

Agreed my old friend. Sigh.


56 posted on 06/24/2005 6:56:46 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw
What also concerns me is that this completely changes the negotiation process, in the favor of the developer and against the landowner.

Before, the landowner could hold out for a higher price, but now the developer doesn't even need to negotiate. They can now say, take it, or we'll MAKE you take it.

57 posted on 06/24/2005 7:01:13 AM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment (Is this field required?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris1
Keep singing the talking points while Rome burns.

Yes, Keep singing the dem talking points while Howard Dean and the liberals burn. The dems seem to be for flag burning. I wonder how that will play just before independence day, huh? Will the Red States like it?

Let me enlighten you on some recent dem talking points:

Nancy Pelosi: The war in Afghanistan is over.

... Very interesting, the Secretary of Defense and the President and our troops were surprised at the news.

Howard Dean: Republican Voters "never held a real job in their life" and are "White Christians"

... I'm posting this on a break at work. I am a "White Christian", I voted in 2000 and 2004. How is this supposed to make me want to vote the Democratic Ticket?

.... Oh and by the way, I never forgave the democrats for disenfranchising our military voters in Florida. You have a lot of work to win me over.

58 posted on 06/24/2005 7:04:15 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Repealthe17thAmendment

We are dying the death of a thousand paper cuts. I got to love when GWB says Freedom is on the March - Yeah - everywhere but here.


59 posted on 06/24/2005 7:05:54 AM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw

60 posted on 06/24/2005 7:07:32 AM PDT by Protagoras (Now that the frog is fully cooked, how would you like it served?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson