Posted on 06/29/2005 7:52:11 PM PDT by 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.
OK. Bulldoze the place, THEN fix the rules.
If your K-12 saw is anything like a C4 cutter; better get video...
Go for it, Bud!
The Second Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, not an imposition on the owners of private property.
Plainly spoken, you have no First or Second Amendment Rights on anyone's private property, and a private property owner has a right to set conditions on your access to his property. He is not enjoined by the Bill of Rights to allow you to set up a podium on his property from where you can give a speech supporting the political ideology of your choice, a pulpit to preach the religion of your choice, or to carry any weapons at all.
Property owners do not have to allow anyone access to their property at all, and that access is subject to conditions and limitations of his choice. Your choice being not entering his property if those conditions are not to your liking.
When you support the notion that a property owner can be forced by the government to allow guns on his property against his wishes, you also support the idea that someone can enter your property and preach Islam or advocate communism against your wishes.
You may support the violation of property rights in the case of what you believe the Second Amendment says, but that doesn't make you right, it doesn't mean that the Second says what it says, and it actually puts you on the same side of the playing field with the Supreme Court on this decision.
You support the erosion of property rights in this instance for your reasons, they support it on other instances for their reasons, and someone else on yet some other instances for their own reasons, and in the end, there will be no property rights.
The road to tyranny is paved with "reasonable" violations of our rights.
Beauseant!
Are you serious???? Guns locked in a vehicle in a parking area where employees leave to go somewhere else vs taking a mans land and giving it to someone else? You are a nut if you can equate those. They are not the same issue.
It may be as you say. However, in this instance, I believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision although they made it for the wrong reason
Concerning the First Amendment, you can stand in your yard and yell foul words at me, and I can, in fact, get the cops to come and deal with you.
This public/private dichotomy is simply not the hard and fast thing you think it is.
Concerning which amendment is more important than the other, rank order in the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. That was what I was responding to.
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.