Posted on 07/11/2005 3:04:17 AM PDT by RoyalsFan
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND Movement builds to seize Souter home If New Hampshire selectmen don't bite, ballot initiatives planned
Supreme Court Justice David Souter probably never expected his vote to permit a Connecticut town the power to seize the homes of citizens would come back to haunt him.
But it may.
An effort by a Los Angeles advertising entrepreneur to persuade the city fathers of Weare, N.H., to turn the tables on Souter by seizing his home and building a hotel on the site is gaining steam.
Logan Darrow Clements and his company, Free Star Media, are now collecting online contributions from the public to support the project.
"There's lots of work that still needs to be done to accomplish our objectives," Clements told WND. "But I am confident we can be successful. This is a way ordinary Americans can fight back – not just against Souter, but against local officials who abuse their authority and callously seize the homes of law-abiding citizens out of sheer greed."
The town of Weare has been inundated with calls in support of the proposal since WND first publicized the story of how Clements plans to turn eminent domain against one of its champions. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 two weeks ago that local towns and cities can seize homes and private businesses through eminent domain and turn the properties over to private developers for no other reason than the fact that it would result in higher tax revenues for the municipality.
"There are so many people who have come out of the woodwork to support me," Clements said. "Government has just gotten far too big and far too powerful. ... We're trying to make a larger point that we're losing freedom so fast in America that we have to stop what we're doing and take a stand and fight it."
A few days after the ruling, Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of Weare, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.
"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," Meany told the Associated Press. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."
Clements wants to build "The Lost Liberty Hotel" on the property as a kind of museum commemorating the lost right to private property in America.
The Kelo v. City of New London decision allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city.
Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.
The first step in the process, said Clements, is to get the Weare Board of Selectmen to vote in favor of the seizure. However, even if that action is unsuccessful, Clements says citizens in the town can and will draft a ballot initiative to accomplish the objective.
So you also advocate Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist killing the other members of the SCOTUS?
What an insult to Goldwater you'd use him to promote such idiocy.
Thanks for the blast from the past. Gives me the chills remembering it, though. Heck, I was still a lurker.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." (Goldwater)
Nuff said?
"Because others on the list had more imposing legal credentials, Judge O'Connor was no sure thing. But she had a friend in court - literally - in William Rehnquist, then an associate justice, whom she had briefly dated when they were both students at Stanford Law School, and the endorsement of her home state senator, Barry Goldwater, then Mr. Conservative of the Republican Party. ..."
- Lou Cannon
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/12959.html
This article made my day. Thanks for posting it.
What would be amusing here would be if Souter isn't really attached to the place, and winds up making a profit if it's successfully annexed. Someone didn't think this through.
Baseless inflammatory accusations are such a rat thing to do.
I advocate the previous poster's right to speak and/or act extremely in defense of his liberty.
You don't? Hmmm....
What an insult to Goldwater you'd use him to promote such idiocy.
The insult is that the party of Goldwater is now populated with an overabundance of milquetoast knee-jerk types who are far too willing to legislate and compromise away what the Founding Fathers won for us.
You're lying.
Let me expand on that:
OR you did not pay attention to what I responding to and decided to comment anyway. Either way, you are making yourself look rather silly.
"New Hampshire home of Justice David Souter"
I see it IS evil--needs to be condemned for the common
good.
I wish I had a few extra bucks to support the project.
Maybe in a couple of weeks.
I saw exactly what was posted in comment #5 and your response in #39.
I supported the other Freeper's right to use extreme rhetoric, and used Goldwater's comment as justification for my support.
I lied about nothing.
I don't know what his intentions were when he posted that comment. But it served to provide cover for slightly less extreme ideas, like invoking eminent domain to take Souter's house.
EcoRats have been using this tactic for years. Greenpeace provided cover for the Sierra Club. Then Earthfirst provided cover for Greenpeace. Now ELF provides cover for Earthfirst.
As the rhetoric and hyperbole continue to escalate, the former extremists appear moderate in comparison.
Like I stated previously, I don't know what was in his heart when he posted #5 but I fully support his right to say it.
If you still view me as lying or silly, I'll look upon you as naive and politically amateurish.
So be it.
Q Does the President believe that it is outrageous for a Los Angeles advertising man to be conducting a campaign to persuade the town selectmen of Weare, New Hampshire, to approve the building of a hotel on the land where Justice Souter's house is located? Or does he regard this as an historic irony resulting from Souter's vote in the case of Kelo versus the City of New London --
MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen anything on it. Jim, go ahead.
Q You didn't see anything on it? You'd like to evade this one, wouldn't you.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I haven't seen anything on it, Les. I like to see reports before I comment on it.
Q No, it's the other ones he's trying to evade.
Q -- on why you can't answer Ed's question about whether -- generally speaking, whether the administration has a credibility problem. I think a lot of people are tuning in, wondering, can we trust what this White House says, can we trust what Scott McClellan says.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.
Q I'm not talking about the case. Can you just address -- do you feel like there's a credibility problem?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you all in this room know me very well. And you know the type of person that I am. You, and many others in this room, have dealt with me for quite some time. The President is a very straightforward and plainspoken person, and I'm someone who believes in dealing in a very straightforward way with you all, as well, and that's what I've worked to do.
Call-In
Supreme Court and Property Rights
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 187675 - 4 - 07/16/2005 - 0:30 - No Sale
Eagle, Steven, Professor, George Mason University, Law
The guest talks about the recent Supreme Court ruling Kelo v. New London that upheld that local governments can seize homes and businesses against the will of the owner for private economic development. He explains how eminent domain law works and what the Supreme Court ruling means for property owners.
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp
Live, on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Just started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.