Developer Begins Process to Seize Justice Souter's Homestead

The Autonomist ^ | Wednesday, June 29, 2005 | Rocco DiPippo

[DaveTesla]

Last week, I reported on the Supreme Court's Kelo vs City of New London decision, which seriously weakened Constitutionally guaranteed private property rights.

Now, in what can only be viewed as an attempt at pure poetic justice, a budding developer, businessman Logan Darrow Clements, has begun the process of seizing Supreme Court Justice David Souter's homestead in Weare, New Hampshire and replacing it with a hotel.

Citing the Kelo decision, Clements has contacted Weare's building official, saying:

"Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

Think the Fab Five ever considered that the Kelo ruling might directly threaten their property rights?

As I've said before, when our Constitution is ignored, all Americans suffer the consequences.

Clements is currently seeking investors to fund the project. He can be reached by clicking here. Encourage him to develop similar plans for properties owned by Supreme Court Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Stevens.

[ForGod'sSake]

Hereyago...Great Vacation Opportunity....

Maybe the mods will leave it up.

[sauropod]

mark

[Squantos]

Any act often repeated soon forms a habit;
and habit allowed, steadily gains in strength.
At first it may be but as the spider's web,
easily broken through,
but if not resisted it soon binds us with chains of steel.

I'll bring the K-12 saw so we can cut some steel chains.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[Smile-n-Win]

Weare-Them-Down ping

FreepMail me to get on or off this ping list for news on the Lost Liberty Hotel!

[Bear_Slayer]

Freestar Media: "Lost Liberty Hotel" proposed on Justice Souter's land

Freestar media

[publiusF27]

While I understand and share the motivation here, seizing Souter's home does us NO GOOD and will HARM us.

The Kelo ruling furthered an awful set of precedents, and we don't need to ratify them by using them against ANYONE.

We need to instead fix the problem, and I see two ways to do that. We amend the Constitution to clarify that public use shall mean public use, as in roadways, utilities, "common carriers." Or, we shoot the bastards.

I'm for trying the amendment route first, and have written my Congresscritters suggesting that course. Here's the letter I sent:

Dear Congresscritter,

I hope you are as outraged as I am about the recent Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case. I want to express my view that taking property from one citizen to benefit another private citizen is NOT a public use. This is an unacceptable decision by the Court, and I urge you to work in the Congress to amend the Constitution or do whatever is necessary to ensure that developers cannot just strongarm property owners out of their land "for the public good."

That is not a public good, it is exactly the kind of looting that we have a government established in order to PREVENT. The secure knowledge that you own your land is an essential ingredient to human prosperity, and the knowledge that your government's buddies can take it at will is a sure path to poverty and tyranny.

Thanks for your time,

Publius

Borrow freely. Do not call them Congresscritters. Be brief and respectful. Use your real name and address. Do it.

[Roccus]

There's no accountin' for friends. A good example would be Bob Newheart and Don Rickles. Another would be some who have befriended me.

[Preachin']

DESK CLERK: "Hi, thanks for calling the Souter Eminent Domain Hotel. How can I help you?"

[Bear_Slayer]

logan@freestarmedia.com

Freestar

[alrea]

the real question here is when democrats will start taking large tracts for housing projects

[jwalsh07]

July 5th Rally in New London

[Non-Sequitur]

Connecticut has legislation on the books that defines the seizure of private property for development by a private contractor as 'public use'. New Hampshire has no such law. In fact, there has never been a case of private property condemned under eminent domain for private use in the state's history. This will not be the first one.

[Romish_Papist]

I've already got 500 bucks set aside to go to this guy to help. Just need to know when and where.

[Bear_Slayer]

He may have started this as a joke, but

Many a truth is spoken in jest. -WS

I would like to see this take off. $500 is cheap to be able illustrate to the SCOTUS how stupid the decision is, to be apart of history, and to pull my master's chain for a bit.

For all of that, I would throw in.

[Redleg Duke]

Now, that is carrying a grudge a bit too far.

[blackie]

You reap what you sow!

Be Ever Vigilant!

[yooling]

Yes. A new amendment to the constitution. Perhaps it could read something like this

..." nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[Just A Nobody]

Beat me to it.

[muawiyah]

USSC Justices are NOT required to recuse themselves from anything. Every now and then you'll find someone doing that, but not because it's required.

Besides, you are talking about people like Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter, and they're the kind of folks no one would ever let behind a cashregister at a grocery store.

Why should they start being honest now.