Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes
  • Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:11:06 EDT



> 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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page