[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.

[alrea]

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

[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."

[muawiyah]

I fail to see how this hurts "us".

In fact, about 20 years ago a fellow posted an advertisement to sell some custom made bricks left over from a construction job here in the DC area.

These bricks had been made to face Robert Strange MacNamara's new home.

I bought them for less than 2 cents apiece ~ the guy who had them was ashamed to keep them.

For many years several of them served as a convenient target for Viet Nam Veteran rage. Literally tons of urine filtered through these fine bricks, and they are imbued with the true sentiments, and scents, of America's heros.

I even sent one to Australia to a Viet Nam Vet who had served in the Nam in their military. Although he and I share absolutely none of the same political beliefs, he assured me that platoons, even whole companies, of vets dealt with that brick in a right proper manner (down at the VA hospital I think).

The same can be done with Souter's home long before it is demolished and burned. Or, maybe even afterwards ~ whenever.

Some politicians deserve this treatment.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

Puuhleeeeaaase

The amendment already exists, besides, WAY too many people will lose their homes and businesses before that idea would ever get off the ground.

Fight fire with fire.

[packrat01]

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

OK. Bulldoze the place, THEN fix the rules.