Property-rights dispute

The Washington Times ^ | July 17, 2007 | Sonya D. Jones and John R. Lott Jr.

[3AngelaD]

This is frightening. At least the administration came down on the side of the property owners. Bush was right to fire the guy.

[agere_contra]

they are not a government agency and are therefore not subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution

Cool! I'm not a government agency either! The law can't touch me!

[Ben Ficklin]

If you give Leus an exception, then you have to give everyone else an exception.

[xcamel]

The simple fact that this egomaniacal “organization” can claim “position for life” and “not subject to the laws of the US constitution” is grounds to have the SOB(s) taken out and shot.

[pnh102]

Bush was right to fire the guy.

Shhhh... you don't want the Democrat Party to hear that! They might suggest the firing was illegal :)

[VeniVidiVici]

If you give Leus an exception, then you have to give everyone else an exception

An exception to what?

[frithguild]

Walter Peck found a new job!

[leadpenny]

Bingo. I’m not a lawyer but I learned that the word “precedent” is very important, even in the by-laws and covenants of HOAs.

[Savage Beast]

Okay. Bush’s firing of Schornack has restored me to his alliance—but only tepidly; I’m still waiting for the pardon of the Border Patrol Agents.

[3AngelaD]

An exception to their private property rights? Without notice? For a harmless wall? Hello? In fact, I think we should be encouraging people who live along the border to build walls, not punish them. But here is a “multi-national” commission that does not recognize the rights provided in our Constitution, run by an egomaniac. I’d say this is a pretty good place to take a stand, and so did the president.

[Savage Beast]

"Schornack's hardheaded approach unfortunately justifies people's worst fears about government."

YOU BET!

And what's really stranger than fiction is that millions of Americans are working overtime to INCREASE the power, reach, and appetite of burocrats and of the Frankenstein's monster known as the Federal Government!

[hocndoc]

“Ideologue”? I *like* ideologues! Here’s what the fired man said:

“To Mr. Schornack, the dispute is largely one of too much fealty to property rights. “I’m not an ideologue, and it seemed to me that I was being demanded to adopt the ideology of the Justice Department.” He claims that the Justice Department lawyers “are on basically amission to pare back what they see as government intrusion intoprivate property.” The problem? That treaty the IBC relies upon for its authority does not actually authorize the regulation of that 20-foot-wide zone. Even so, Mr. Schornack and the IBC set a deadline for the Leus to remove their retaining wall, otherwise the IBC would do it themselves.”

[pabianice]

Despite the fact that the IBC claims to be authorized to regulate and control the use of private property within the United States, Mr. Schornack and the IBC actually responded that they are not a government agency and are therefore not subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution. The Justice Department asked to take over the case and negotiate a compromise that considers the couple's private property complaints. But the commission claimed that, as an international commission, it was not obligated to compromise on the issues.

Mr. Schornack needs a good flogging, followed by being run out of town on a rail. And the Dems still want the UN to run the world.

[MarkL]

If you give Leus an exception, then you have to give everyone else an exception.

An exception to what? I've read this article a few times, and I really don't understand the claims of this "commission." The fact is that the wall was built well within the boundaries of their property. Is the commission stating that their authority over property is, in effect, an easement well onto their own property?

What really pisses me off is the attitude of the US representative, in saying a) that he's got the job for life and can't be fired, and b) that they're not a government commission, and therefore not subject to laws or the Constitution.

IMHO, if an international entity is operating on US soil, it's subject to the laws of the US. Since these people are NOT diplomats, no diplomatic immunity is assumed.

Mark

[3AngelaD]

Why did you omit the tar and feathers? Seems to me Schornack is a prime candidate for that part of the treatment.

[waverna]

Maybe he didn’t say the ‘magic word’.

[Issaquahking]

Okay. Bush’s firing of Schornack has restored me to his alliance—but only tepidly; I’m still waiting for the pardon of the Border Patrol Agents.


Bush did good on this. Should have made more press out of it.

Now if he would pardon Ramos, Compean, and Gilmer Hernandez, and fire all those incompetents that allowed the situation to deteriorate to this point, he could do good.

If President Bush would realize there is a conservative base that would support him when he moves right (pard the pun) he has all kinds of opportunity to "create a legacy". Needs to quit loving illegals, and do the country right on the border, and he would be hailed a leader, rather than where he is standing now in regard to everything having a shadow, because he is ignoring "his base".

[JZelle]

“Okay. Bush’s firing of Schornack has restored me to his alliance—but only tepidly; I’m still waiting for the pardon of the Border Patrol Agents.”

No worries, Dianne Feinstein’s working on that one.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

...simply come onto their property, remove their wall and then send them the bill. be removed by the local coroner.

There, fixed it.

[Issaquahking]

Dennis Schornack needs a year in jail, in general poulation, always knowing that one year after entering the jail, he will die by firing squad. Bet the guy is a democrat, doing BS that conservatives refuse to do...