Developer Begins Process to Seize Justice Souter's Homestead

The Autonomist ^ | Wednesday, June 29, 2005 | Rocco DiPippo

[publiusF27]

There is no reason an amendment should take more than about a year. It could probably be done more quickly than that. They can act pretty darn fast if they want to.

I'm hoping we can avoid a fight, but what we cannot do is change the law. Decisions of the Supreme Court are treated as part of the Constitution, and no law can change the Constitution. It is true that some states have protections against abusive ED actions. It is also true that there is a bill in Congress to withhold federal funds from any project which employs the ED standards just ratified by the Court. But neither of those things does what really needs to be done, and that is, to make it clear that this kind of looting is not OK in America. It is not OK even if your state says it is OK. It is not OK even if you are not currently taking any federal money. It is just not OK, period.

No law can say that. Only an amendment can say that at this point. I know we already have one, and it seems clear enough on this point to me as well, but evidently it needs more clarification.

[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.

[packrat01]

the K-12 saw

If your K-12 saw is anything like a C4 cutter; better get video...

[pointsal]

Ping to the top.... like this deal.

Go for it, Bud!

[Lancelot Jones]

I'm not concerned on whether you buy my argument or not, the truth remains the truth.

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!

[Nov3]

Not long ago, many in this forum cheered on as the Oklahoma legislature violated private property rights by passing into law a bill which prohibited employers from banning firearms in their company parking lots. This law is a clear violation of the property rights of the owners of those companies.

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.

[billbears]

The road to tyranny is paved with "reasonable" violations of our rights.

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

[muawiyah]

Sure I do ~ if I enter on the property of a business open to the public, and he says I can't carry my gun, but the law says I can, he can't get a court to enforce his demand that I be removed from the premises.

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.

[SunnySide]

Now that's what I call fighting fire with fire. Meow!