Friday, June 24, 2005

A House is not your Home.....(public vs. private)

If the spineless majority in Washington needed a reason to go nuclear this is it. This country needs some judges who remember what the Constitution is and what the original intent was.

In ruling against property owners everywhere in the country, Justice Stevens said...(the city) could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use.

Given that the land is not for public use, but rather private development, I'd say the New London case already fails the litmus test. It is absolutely amazing to me that liberals see no difference between private and public...I think it is more telling about their agenda than anything else. The left yearns for the day when government controls every aspect of American life, as well as the means, production & property.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor who specializes in property rights.

Oh, I've been to a few hearings lately as you can imagine...and it's always the same....a mere formality....council members and commissioners have their minds made up before they even call for a hearing.

What also confounds me is that there is never an ounce of consideration to the argument of what is public and what is private. The smoking ban is of course the best example. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and its financial beneficiaries American Lung, American Cancer, Non-Smokers Rights, AMA, etc. claim the ban is justified in bars & restaurants because they're public places and of course the city councils and commissioners don't bat an eye, the question of private vs. public isn't even open for debate. But just let one restaurant owner demand that the city pay the operating costs at their "public" restaurant, and you can guess what they'd say.

Definition update:It's private property when there are operating & maintenance costs to be paid, it's public property when local government or big business wants to take it from you. Got that straight now?

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)