Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

Gene writes:

> Move on.

If you like.  But email lists are for discussion, are they not?  If every 
topic is met with a quick 'move on', what's the point of discussing it to 
begin 
with?

Here's at least one aspect of it that hasn't yet been addressed:  The SC 
decision in Kelo does not enhance the individual's rights any, not one bit.  
People have always had the right to limit the authority of local governments 
with 
respect to eninent domain, as many have.  Your explaination  that Kelo is a 
good thing in that directs local governments to decide the definition of 
'public 
use' for themselves is a bit empty in that locals have always had the 
prerogative to restrict those powers of local governments.  The point would 
be well 
made if there were a decision being handed down from the ffeds that *forced* 
local governments to accept a liberal definition of 'public use' and the SC 
then 
decided that  this had to be left up to the local goverment to decide.  But 
that's not the case.  Viewed from the point of interest of the individual 
property owner, Kelo does not enhance their position in any way whatever.  It 
is a 
one-sided loss.  

So while you might laud the notion of local governments having the power to 
limit the definiton 'public use', Kelo does nothing to further that.  Locals 
have always had the power to do that.

Yes, there have been numerous eminent domain abuses.  Those who keep up with 
such things have been expecting for years that a case would finally reach the 
SC and the very conservative definition of 'public use' would be clarified.  
All sorts of violations of individual rights existed for years before they 
were 
finally quashed by the SC.

Kelo added absolutely nothing to the individual's rights that wasn't already 
there but at the same time removed the single largest deterrent to abuse.  It 
is wholy a bad thing and is of use only to someone planning on abusing those 
least able to fight them.

>No, the feds need to enforce that. As citizens we are free to move about 
>the country from state to state, from community to community. 

That's fine for those of the 'vagabond upon the earth' view of things but 
some of us have deep cultural and family ties to one place.  Displacing us 
from 
there is far more agregious than failing to support our right to free speech 
or 
freedom of religion.


Gene, you made your explaination, true enough.  But unless it is to be taken 
as an inviolate fiat, excuse me for pointing out that there are flaws in the 
logic.  That's what comes to chosing to be too few of words rather than 
perhaps 
too complete of presentation.


James