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

To: ellery
Thanks. That would be fine.

While I support Mr. Giuliani’s candidacy, I am not hardened on that position. It is still early.

For instance, I heard Duncan Hunter on Sean’s radio show earlier this week. He sounded strong in my opinion. This morning I heard Tommy Thompson on Fox and Friends, he too impressed me with having a clear vision of what should be done in Iraq.

I am looking forward to the debates next month at the Reagan Presidential Library. A long campaign will test all the candidates.

The primaries continue.......

101 posted on 04/04/2007 9:51:23 AM PDT by aligncare (Beware the Media-Industrial Complex!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: aligncare
I'm looking forward to the debates, too -- although I'm always disappointed about how shallow the questions are. (I embarrass myself by yelling at the TV for the moderator to ask about my pet issues:))

Anyway, here are the links on Rudy's record on the issues I mentioned. This is long -- my apologies. There's a lot more info out there, but this is a start:

***

Forfeiture for those acquitted of a crime --

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E1DB103DF930A15751C0A96F958260

Key excerpt: The seizures came as Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani hinted at how tough the crackdown might be, saying that even those ultimately acquitted of drunken driving in criminal court could still face the prospect of losing their cars through proceedings in civil courts.

''Let's say somebody is acquitted, and it's one of those acquittals in which the person was guilty, but there is just not quite enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,'' the Mayor said. ''That might be a situation in which the car would still be forfeited.''

This is a huge red flag for me. In our system, the executive has no authority to declare the guilt of someone who's been acquitted by a jury, and then levy punishment.

***

Support for collecting DNA from every newborn --

While not actually proposing it here, he defends the idea (and demonstrates a truly flawed view of how the Constitution works in the process):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF103DF934A25751C1A96E958260

Key excerpt: When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: ''I don't know that that's the proposal, but I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children. We go through a massive effort to try to fingerprint large numbers of children'' now, he said, ''so in case they are lost they can be found again or in case if they are kidnapped they can be found again. There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified.''

-snip-

''It's not invasive,'' the Mayor said. ''It doesn't invade any right of privacy. You don't have a right not to be identified. I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified.''

(Yikes! He was a prosecuter! He should know intimately that the Constitution doesn't give us rights; it limits government.)

Later, he does propose that the state legislature mandate collection of DNA from all newborns:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/11/32617

Key excerpt: Many experts believe the FBI's database will be expanded in the future. The International Association of Police Chiefs has asked Congress to require DNA samples from anyone arrested, and New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani has requested that the state legislature require DNA samples from every newborn baby.

***

Support of eminent domain for the benefit of private developers --

Here’s an example where Giuliani and Pataki teamed up and used eminent domain to seize land for the New York Stock Exchange (a private organization):

20 Failed Projects Involving Eminent Domain Abuse

(PDF document, page 12)

More on the project:

Here’s a FR thread about the project:

Here’s an article about the deal Giuliani and Pataki made with the New York Times to seize private property from small business owners for the NY Times’ new skyscraper:

Key excerpt: The property’s present owners charge that the Times used its clout as a powerful newspaper publisher to grab the valuable land away from them through a sweetheart deal with city and state government.

“You just don’t think things like that can happen in this country,” said Scot Cohen, who runs his family’s B & J Fabrics, a garment district fixture since 1958 in a 16-story office building that the Times wants to demolish. “You work hard to build something up, and then someone who is bigger than you can take it away.”

Here’s some more information on how Pataki and Giuliani invoked “blight” to condemn and seize property for the NY Times building, even though the Times Square area was at the time booming:

Key excerpt: At the request of the New York Times and developer Forest City Ratner, Empire State has initiated condemnation proceedings against ten businesses on the proposed site for the newspaper’s new headquarters, the block between Seventh and Eighth Avenues and 40th and 41st Streets.

In order to condemn the land, Empire State invoked the 42nd Street Project, a plan from 1984 designed to rid Times Square of “urban blight.” Though office space around Times Square is now some of the most expensive in the city, the 42nd Street Project still applies, and the state agency says that the specific block in question is still “blighted, deteriorated, substandard, insanitary [sic] and underutilized.”

Sidney Orbach, who owns a 16-story office building that has been condemned, disagrees. In 1984, “there was blight,” he conceded. “But there certainly isn’t anymore.” His building has prestigious tenants including the fashion designer Donna Karan, and before condemnation proceedings began, it was fully occupied. (Since the condemnation, he complains, brokers have been wooing tenants from his building). Orbach believes the newspaper could build elsewhere. “Plenty of space is available on the free market,” he said.

Finally, here is an article written by Giuliani’s Commissioner of New York City Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development(titled “Eminent Domain is a Tool, Not a Conspiracy”):

Key excerpt: In many projects eminent domain is not being used to eliminate “blight” like urban renewal projects of the past, but to generate jobs and taxes into the future. We don’t live in a country where the federal government supports all of these local uses, like schools and police. We have to come up with those dollars ourselves. I agree that there has to be constraint on eminent domain decisions, just as there has to be constraint on anything that government does. But we shouldn’t think that these projects are “bad” just because they are the work of private developers. We need to have these kinds of uses to generate jobs and taxes.

Rudy personally appointed her:

119 posted on 04/05/2007 10:44:37 AM PDT by ellery (Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine-PJORourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]

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