Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

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 corruption,
socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "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:
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/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:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead