Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> I prefer to have my adversaries where I can see the whites of their eyes. 
> Hence, I want local control, local response to the inevitable dishonesty 
> and self-service. I chose such a place.
> 
> 

Including your right to free speech?  Let's take that as an example.  As I've 
told you in private correspondence (although I don't mind if the particulars 
are public) when we had to defend a provision of our deed in court a few 
years 
ago, my erstwhile adversary asked the court to issue a restraint that we nor 
any of our neighbors (co-plaintifs) could mention or discuss the restrictions 
of the deeds to any prospective buyer of the defendants land.  (as you 
recall, 
he was trying to lie about the restrictions to get a higher price).  The 
judge who spends almost all of every day hearing divorce cases had something 
more 
interesting before him that day and was all gregarious smiles up to that 
point.  When that request was made he darkened and said in all seriousness to 
the 
defense that it was improper to make such a request in his court, that would 
be 
a matter of curtailing free speech.

The existence of the guarantee of free speech sat over His Honor and the 
court like a ten ton safe.  Violating free speech would have set the gates of 
Hell 
lose on the local institution and he knew it.

Until Kelo, the notion of private property sat like just such a ten ton safe. 
 Most municipalites, even those who were pushing the envelope on this, knew 
that the constitutional concept of private property loomed over them.  Until 
now.  Now there are no restraints to abuse except local ones.

Before Kelo most people of modest means were protected in their property 
because of the threat of the violation of a constitutional right.  Now 
corrupt 
local governments (that is to say, all of them) and the people who bribe them 
know that the poor and modest can't fight the case and appeals.  It matters 
not a 
wit that it is harder to proceed in federal courts than local courts, the 
poor have no means to do either.

I guess, Gene, my question remains.  I imagining that you, like me and most 
people here, are keen on property rights ... why would you feel better or 
more 
secure now that the threat that attaching your property though eminent domain 
might run afoul of your constitutional guarantee of same has been effectively 
removed?  And why would you want the federal protection for your rights to 
your property turned over to local determination but not your other rights.  
Why 
do the arguments you have furthered to abdicate the enforcement of one right  
to the locals not apply to your other guaranteed rights as well?

James