Judge issues fine over 'historical piece of junk'

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Friday, October 18, 2002 | Matthew Junker

[Willie Green]

A Fayette County district justice fined a Churchill couple $25,200 for failing to maintain a Brownsville property

[Willie Green]

Quite often "historic building" designations are used by preservationists to obstruct renewal efforts.

Here we have blatant abuse of the concept in an effort to permit property degradation below community health and safety standards.

The Liggets are clearly slumlords in possession of far more property than they can properly maintain. Rather than levying fines, the government should force divestiture through condemnation so that others may acquire, maintain and improve those properties for the benefit of the community.

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant."

--Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

[Roscoe]

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson

[tpaine]

"Here we have blatant abuse of the concept in an effort to permit property degradation below community health and safety standards." - willy

- Or, - it could be seen as:

Here we have blatant abuse of the 'community health and safety standard' concept in an effort to permit property seizure by the community.

Cases like this one are exactly why we have a jury system, backed up by constitutional law review. Let justice be done.

-- We need no more of this 'community standard' type law subverting individual rights. Such laws violate rights to life liberty and property without using due process.

[Willie Green]

Such laws violate rights to life liberty and property without using due process.

This fine was levied in district court where the Liggets had the right to a jury if they so chose.

Where do you think "due process" was "violated"???

[tpaine]

Btw, both of you quoting Jefferson; --
-- who is writing on the communitarian practices of indian tribes, -- and in effect using ol Toms musings as an authoritive statement on constitutional property rights; --
-- is really bizarre thinking.

It illustrates how far gone you two really are into the majority rule socialistic agenda.

[tpaine]

In the basic premise that property can be confiscated for community use by using health & safety standards as an dodge.

[Willie Green]

and in effect using ol Toms musings as an authoritive statement on constitutional property rights; --
-- is really bizarre thinking.

"Bizarre"???

Do you think Jefferson had no input in the formulation of our Constitution?

OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION
Posted by Willie Green
On Mar 25 2000 8:40 PM with 27 comments
University of Virginia Library ^ | Paris, Dec. 20, 1787 | Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

[freedomcrusader]

Do you think Jefferson had no input in the formulation of our Constitution?

He was in France at the time, and pretty much kept abreast of things by communicating with Madison. He wasn't at any of the Constitutional Convention meetings. Unless his letters from Paris significantly influenced others and caused things to happen through those actors (which is a premise I'm willing to consider should anyone provide the proof but I'm highly skeptical), then I'd say he didn't have much influence.

So, while he didn't have "no" input, I'd say his influence was minimal.

[Willie Green]

In the basic premise that property can be confiscated for community use by using health & safety standards as an dodge.

Not for "community use".
For reallocation to another, more responsible individual, for the benefit of the community.
Jefferson asserts that government has the right to determine the conditions of the grant" to property owners.
If the property has been allowed to deteriorate below the community norms for health and safety, it's clear that the "owner" finished "gathering the produce of the field", and it is time to pass along that property to someone who is more ambitious and responsible in its use.

[tpaine]

"Do you think Jefferson had no input in the formulation of our Constitution?"


Jeffersons musings on how indians viewed property are from 1812.

Your using them as 'imput' is bizarre.

[tpaine]

"Jefferson asserts that government has the right to determine the conditions of the grant" to property owners."


You are misreading Jeffersons 1812 statement. - He's commenting on how some indian governments operated.

[freedomcrusader]

One more thing. The link you posted shows just how much influence Jefferson DIDN'T have. Despite his pleading, there was no Bill of Rights (at least not until it became clear that a Bill of Rights was the one thing they could promise to get the darn thing passed).

His dislike of the lack of term limits was completely ignored.

He thought there should be 1-year delay between the submission of a bill and a vote on passage, unless 2/3 of both houses thought the bill more urgent. Nothing at all in the Constitution about that.

Finally, he defers to Madison:

I have thus told you freely what I like & dislike: merely as a matter of curiosity, for I know your own judgment has been formed on all these points after having heard everything which could be urged on them.

[Willie Green]

So, while he didn't have "no" input, I'd say his influence was minimal.

There are scholars who would disagree with you:

James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson

This letter may be thought of James Madison's first and perhaps critical effort to secure ratitication of the Constitution. Jefferson's support could not be assumed: he, unlike Madison, was not upset by Shay's rebellion, and he strongly objected to the lack of a Bill of Rights. Yet his support, or at least an absence of opposition, was essential for the ratification. If Jefferson had opposed the ratification or supported the call for another convention, Madison would have had to overcome the opposition of Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe to secure Virginia's ratification. It is difficult to imagine that Madison could have succeeded. If Virginia had not ratified, then New York would likely have refused to ratify, and the new Union would have failed without these two key states.

This one seldom read letter thus may be the single most important letter in James Madison's career and perhaps one of the most important in the history of the United States.

[Willie Green]

You are misreading Jeffersons 1812 statement. - He's commenting on how some indian governments operated.

No, Roscoe's quote in reply #2 indicates that Jefferson considered the concept to be universal.
Jefferson's reference to the Indians merely served to show the fundamental nature of the concept, even in primitive societies.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

He just thinks it sounds sophisticated to throw the work "due process" around. Never mind what it actually means.

[freedomcrusader]

I agree that his support was critical for passage, but I think his influence on what was actually written in the Constitution was near zero. It was a happy outcome for Madison that he got Jefferson's support. I would also argue that Jefferson's desire for a Bill of Rights is a major reason we have have one.

[jimt]

It illustrates how far gone you two really are into the majority rule socialistic agenda.

Tom was for lite rail too, dontcha know. Heck, taxpayer subsidies upwards of $17 per passenger mile are a good thing.

[Willie Green]

It's always interesting to hear from those who prefer to live in shi*houses.

Thank-you for your comments.

[Willie Green]

I agree that his support was critical for passage, but I think his influence on what was actually written in the Constitution was near zero.

I would regard that statement as self-contradictory.
The need for Jefferson's support implies substantial influence, even without his actual presence in the proceedings.
His views were amply presented by his political allys who were there.
And Madison felt the need to "toe-the-line", so to speak, to get Jeffersons support.
THAT is "influence".