[Homestead] CFR, was An article cheering the Supremes
Lynda
lurine at softcom.net
Sun Apr 2 18:15:12 EDT 2006
I find it very interesting that Mexico wants a wide open U.S/Mexico border
but rounds up all those that cross their souther border, puts them in camps
and then returns them to their country of origin at gun point!
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "abitcrazy" <abitcrazy at cox.net>
> Whoa! one can't link
>
> corruption,
> socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada.
>
> After all, is there a rash of Canadians illegally coming to our country?
> Nope. why? because they have a better government. Mexico is corrupt,
> and does not take care of its people. Alas, America is getting more like
> Mexico. So, there is a rush all right, but it's to reduce US to
> third-world economic status as a working people. It is bad government
> that creates an economic collapse of a middle class, and reduces the
> society to haves and have-nots, with the haves being a tiny minority.
>
> I am totally against NAFTA and CAFTA and anything else that does not only
> maintain our economic advantages for our workers, but attempts to raise
> the level of economic security to all nations, instead of acting in
> corporate interests in their never-ending quest for cheaper and cheaper
> labor. After all, when labor ceases to make enough, who will buy all the
> goods and services? It is desirable to have a strong and growing middle
> class, as they are the ones who sustain an economy.
>
> arlene
>
>
>> You mean such as the proposed North American Community?
>>
>> " The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of
>> the
>> bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security
>> partnerships
>> with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells
>> out
>> a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American
>> economic and security community" with a common "outer security
>> perimeter."
>> "Community" means integrating the United States with the "Common
>> perimeter"
>> means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada."
>>
>> Lynda
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "abitcrazy" <abitcrazy at cox.net>
>> To: <homestead at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 11:34 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think it is typical of TNR (which is more right-slanted) to favor the
>>> court's decision as constitutional. I am mightily fearful, these days,
>>> of all the violations and broad-sweeping interpretations that "eminent
>>> domain" is taking. In Tempe, AZ they attempted to use the eminent
>>> domain to STEAL business property for - guess - a new Strip Mall for a
>>> large developer, saying that ECONOMIC GOOD would come out of it. Now,
>>> eminent domain is supposed to be for the public good. We keep these
>>> interpretations going, we will lose all our public lands, and then the
>>> beauty that exists, and the wildlife that are protected, will soon
>>> disappear to only those who can pay-for-play.
>>>
>>> Hopefully, everyone here is most concerned with the loss of the country
>>> that we were all born into.
>>>
>>> Read www.rawstory.com
>>> mediamatters.org
>>> truthout.org
>>>
>>> and yes, the ever-criticized ACLU. Shouldn't every, single one of our
>>> elected so-called "representatives" (representing who, these days?) be
>>> concerned with civil liberties? Is that not why the constitution was
>>> founded in the first place? It was to protect CITIZENS from EXCESSIVE
>>> ABUSE by their government. It was meant to CHECK government, not
>>> empower and embolden it in an ever expanding manner as they have done
>>> under this administration.
>>>
>>> arlene
>>>
>>>
>>>> As most of you who will read this know, I'm more than a little queasy
>>>> about
>>>> the Supreme's ruling on eminent domain. Just to add a bit to the other
>>>> side
>>>> of the argument, I submit this article (printed in full because TNR now
>>>> has
>>>> most of its material available only to subscribers):
>>>>
>>>> Breyer Restraint
>>>> by the Editors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court term that ended this week managed to infuriate both
>>>> liberals and conservatives. In particular, the Court's decisions
>>>> upholding
>>>> some displays of the Ten Commandments but not others and allowing New
>>>> London, Connecticut, to seize private homes in an effort to promote
>>>> economic
>>>> development were attacked by critics on both sides of the political
>>>> spectrum
>>>> for exalting pragmatism over constitutional principle. But, in fact,
>>>> both
>>>> sets of decisions were defensible in constitutional as well as
>>>> practical
>>>> terms. They represented an admirable recognition that the Court governs
>>>> best
>>>> when it governs least.
>>>>
>>>> It's easy to sympathize with those who instinctively question the harsh
>>>> result in the property rights case, Kelo v. New London. A 5-4 majority
>>>> allowed the New London City Council to use eminent domain--a
>>>> government's
>>>> right to seize property in its jurisdiction so long as it provides just
>>>> compensation--to take nine homes from their owners in order to develop
>>>> office buildings to complement a nearby pharmaceutical research
>>>> facility
>>>> that the city believes will create jobs. Many citizens, understandably,
>>>> view
>>>> this outcome as unfair. Nevertheless, defenders of judicial restraint,
>>>> particularly liberals, should applaud the Court's refusal to
>>>> second-guess
>>>> the economic judgments of city and state legislatures. Had the Court
>>>> come
>>>> out the other way, as libertarian supporters of the so-called
>>>> Constitution
>>>> in Exile urged it to do, the decision would have unleashed a torrent of
>>>> judicial activism that might have called into question everything from
>>>> local
>>>> zoning ordinances to environmental laws.
>>>>
>>>> The appropriate response to the unfairness inherent in individual cases
>>>> involving eminent domain is political, not judicial. This week, Senator
>>>> John
>>>> Cornyn of Texas introduced the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses,
>>>> and
>>>> Private Property Act of 2005, which would prohibit any
>>>> government--state,
>>>> local, or federal--that accepts federal funds for a development project
>>>> from
>>>> using eminent domain to promote economic growth. A bill like this might
>>>> help
>>>> to discourage eminent domain abuse--that is, condemnation of private
>>>> homes
>>>> for private profit--without asking judges to second-guess the economic
>>>> decisions of legislators, a task for which they are notoriously
>>>> ill-equipped.
>>>>
>>>> The Ten Commandments decisions were similarly farsighted. By a 5-4
>>>> vote,
>>>> the
>>>> Court struck down displays of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky
>>>> courthouses, holding that the exhibits lacked a legitimate secular
>>>> purpose
>>>> since they had been installed to acknowledge the Bible as Kentucky's
>>>> "precedent legal code." By contrast, a different 5-4 majority upheld
>>>> Texas's
>>>> tacky display of a huge Ten Commandments tablet outside the state
>>>> capitol,
>>>> since it had been sponsored by Cecil B. DeMille to promote his movie
>>>> The
>>>> Ten
>>>> Commandments. The swing justice who joined both majorities was Stephen
>>>> Breyer, who noted convincingly in his concurring opinion in the Texas
>>>> case
>>>> that religious displays can convey different messages in different
>>>> contexts.
>>>> Breyer also recognized that striking down all public displays of the
>>>> Ten
>>>> Commandments, as some extreme secularists demanded, might "create the
>>>> very
>>>> kind of religiously based divisiveness" that the Constitution seeks to
>>>> avoid.
>>>>
>>>> The Court's moderate performance is all the more striking when
>>>> contrasted
>>>> with the position of the most radical dissenting justice, Clarence
>>>> Thomas.
>>>> In the eminent domain and Ten Commandments cases, Thomas offered a
>>>> highly
>>>> questionable interpretation of the Constitution and urged the Court to
>>>> overturn decades of its own precedents. If Thomas's view had prevailed,
>>>> the
>>>> states would no longer be required to respect constitutional
>>>> prohibitions
>>>> on
>>>> the establishment of religion. And limits on judicial power over
>>>> economic
>>>> regulations that have prevailed since the New Deal would be
>>>> dramatically
>>>> altered.
>>>>
>>>> In the event that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist resigns, resisting
>>>> a
>>>> justice in Thomas's image should be the central focus of Senate
>>>> Democrats. A
>>>> Gallup poll released this week suggests that a narrow majority of
>>>> Americans
>>>> believe that President Bush should choose a consensus candidate for the
>>>> Court if Democrats object to his first choice. Less than half, by
>>>> contrast,
>>>> believe that Bush should stand by his first choice if the nominee
>>>> proves
>>>> to
>>>> be controversial. This suggests that the majority of Americans are
>>>> relatively happy with the broad direction of the Supreme Court, even
>>>> when
>>>> they question the results in individual cases. The wise decisions this
>>>> week
>>>> were a reminder of why the pragmatic Court has earned the public's
>>>> confidence by generally deferring to the political branches. Now it's
>>>> time
>>>> for a more ideological Congress to rise to the occasion.
>>>>
>>>> the Editors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Homestead list and subscription:
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
>>>> Change your homestead list member options:
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/abitcrazy%40cox.net
>>>> View the archives at:
>>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Homestead list and subscription:
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
>>> Change your homestead list member options:
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40softcom.net
>>> View the archives at:
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Homestead list and subscription:
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
>> Change your homestead list member options:
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/abitcrazy%40cox.net
>> View the archives at:
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40softcom.net
> View the archives at:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead
>
>
More information about the Homestead
mailing list