1
   

Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 05:04 pm
So what is to prevent an opportunistic city council or whatever from devising an 'economic development plan' to reduce crime, improve property values, expand the tax base etc. and include Joe's property in the plan? Then when a friendly developer comes along, it could be a done deal, yes? Nobody would probably mind much that it was the developer who put the notion into the councilmen's heads and who provided incentive to implement it.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 05:23 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
So what is to prevent an opportunistic city council or whatever from devising an 'economic development plan' to reduce crime, improve property values, expand the tax base etc. and include Joe's property in the plan? Then when a friendly developer comes along, it could be a done deal, yes? Nobody would probably mind much that it was the developer who put the notion into the councilmen's heads and who provided incentive to implement it.


YOU. You and your fellow citizens, believing that your local government is susceptible to corruption and will abuse the power of eminent domain to the disadvantage of local property owners in favor of rich developers, ought to bring your grievances to your state elected representatives and demand that they pass laws to properly limit the power of eminent domain with respect to "economic development."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 06:02 pm
And--I'm honestly not being contentuous here, but it seems so often SCOTUS rulings take on a life of their own--when my state legilature limits power of eminent domain and the city council appeals that ruling all the way to the SC, we'll still see it bounced back to the state?
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:05 pm
Debra_Law wrote:

JWK:

You claim to be an constitutional expert who runs his own "American Constitutional Research Service." Accordingly, if you have the slightest idea of the things you are talking about, you should be able to read my posts and understand them.


Making things up, again, Debra? Please post my words in which I claimed to be a “constitutional expert“.

Do you understand what the word “research” means as in American Constitutional Research Service?


Debra_Law wrote:


Either you're evading or avoiding or you truly don't understand. If it's the former, I'm tired of your hypocritical game. If it's the latter, you truly need to reevaluate the merits of presenting yourself as a constitutional expert.


And where have I presented myself as a “constitutional expert”, Debra? Please post my words to support your claim.


Debra_Law wrote:

Here are your professed beliefs:

PROFESSED BELIEF No. 1: The Bill of Rights (including the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment) applies to FEDERAL ACTION ONLY. The Takings Clause does not apply to STATE ACTION.


The Bill of Rights contained in our federal Constitution was adopted with the intent of limiting the actions of Congress and the federal government


Debra_Law wrote:

Here are your professed beliefs:
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 2: The Fourteenth Amendment applies to STATE ACTION, but only when a state seeks to regulate on the basis of race, color, or former condition of slavery.


The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to prohibit legislation based upon race, color or former condition of slavery and secure the same civil rights [not political rights] as enjoyed by whites. It was intended to carry into effect the first Civil Rights Act and give it the force of constitutional authority.


Debra_Law wrote:

Here are your professed beliefs:
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 3: Your first two "professed beliefs" are based on your construction of the Constitution which in turn is based on what you believe was the original intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.


My first two beliefs as stated are not based upon my construction of the Constitution, but rather , are based upon, and in accordance with, the most fundamental principle of constitutional law ___ to carry out the intent of the constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it.

Debra_Law wrote:

Here are your professed beliefs:
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 4: Whenever the United States Supreme Court applies any of the protections in the Bill of Rights to STATE ACTION (via the Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court is subverting the Constitution, betraying Federalism, committing an act of Tyranny, and becomes a PUBLIC ENEMY.


Whenever the SCOTUS renders a decision contrary to the intent of the Constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it, the Court is subjugating the will of the people and imposing its own whims and fancies as being the law of the land.




Debra_Law wrote:


Here are your professed beliefs:
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 5: FEDERALISM. Unless given explicit authority under the Constitution through one of its delegated, enumerated powers, the federal government is required to keep its nose out of STATE business. In other words, you are a proponent of STATES' RIGHTS.


STATES' RIGHTS? You confuse my being a proponent of the People’s Rights as they have established them by our constitutions, state and federal.

Debra_Law wrote:

NOW. Given your professed beliefs, the Supreme Court did not have authority to apply the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to STATE ACTION in the Kelo case via the Fourteenth Amendment.


I would agree with that.


Debra_Law wrote:

ALSO. Given your professed beliefs, the issue of "public use" with respect to STATE ACTION is a STATES' RIGHTS issue.


No! It’s a state constitutional issue.




Debra_Law wrote:


ALSO. Given your professed beliefs, the people in the State of Connecticut cannot rely on the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to provide federal constitutional protection against STATE takings cases; they cannot rely on the federal government via the U.S. Supreme Court to grant them protection they are not entitled to have in our system of federalism, and the people of the State of Connecticut must look to their own democratic political processes of their own state to limit their own state's power of eminent domain.


Exactly so!
Debra_Law wrote:

ALSO. Given your professed beliefs, you should be thrilled that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE because, AGAIN, according to your professed beliefs, the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear this particular grievance and the people's remedy, if any, lies with their own state government.



No Debra. I am not thrilled “…that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE “. The truth is, the Court ruled in favor of state public servants, agreeing they have authority to take the property of one and sell it to another for a profit making venture, and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter. The Court unduly and without constitutional authority, lent its position of authority in the case and sided with one of the litigants in the case.

Debra_Law wrote:

HOWEVER, DESPITE YOUR PROFESSED BELIEFS, you criticize the Supreme Court for its failure (in you eyes) to properly apply the FEDERAL "public use" doctrine to protect people against the harmful actions of their STATE government.


No Debra. You are making things up again.

I did not “criticize the Supreme Court for its failure . . . to properly apply the FEDERAL "public use" doctrine to protect people against the harmful actions of their STATE government.” I criticized the Court for interfering in a case in which there was no federal question and using it position of authority to improperly side with one of the litigants in the case.



Debra_Law wrote:

CONCLUSION: Your current criticism of the United States Supreme Court demonstrates an instance of FALSENESS in the application of your professed beliefs . . . hence: HYPOCRISY. (See definition of HYPOCRISY posted above.)



You still have offered nothing to substantiate your charge of hypocrisy leveled at me, nor presented any statement made by me showing that I have been inconsistent in my position concerning the 14th Amendment. In essences, you have level an unsubstantiated personal attack upon my character which violates the rules of this forum.

Please post a link to your post in which you set forth my “inconsistent construction and application of the Fourteenth Amendment. “

And just what is my current criticism in the case being discussed in this thread? Please post my words and explain how it is hypocritical and inconsistent with what I have posted in the past as you have charged.

I’m waiting, Debra, for you to support your charges which have called my character into question.


JWK
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:39 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
Let me address this hypothetical using established law. (Not the screwed up, convoluted law according to JWK.)

And what is the “convoluted law” you are talking about? Please provide a link.

Debra_Law wrote:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the STATE from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (Despite JWK's professed beliefs, the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited in its application to STATE regulation on the basis of race, color, or former condition of slavery.)


Seems to me there is a mountain of evidence available to establish the intent of those who framed and ratified the 14th Amendment was to prohibit legislation based upon race, color or former condition of slavery and secure to blacks the same civil rights [not political rights] as enjoyed by whites. It was intended to carry into effect the first Civil Rights Act and give it the force of constitutional authority.

If you have documentation to the contrary, please feel free to post it. But, a research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, which was intended to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution --- thereby making the first Civil Rights Act constitutional --- does not support the claim that those who framed and ratified it intended it to apply in a very broad manner so as to prohibit state legislation making distinctions beyond race color or previous condition of slavery!

As a matter of fact, there is an abundance of documented evidence the amendment was specifically intended to apply in a very narrow area…to prohibit state authorized discrimination, unequal law, based upon “race, color, or previous condition of slavery…”

As Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment stated when it was being debated:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery..It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.”[/i] Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex, physical disabilities, or the current shopping list which is today claimed, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution! This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination which is prima facie evidence the Fourteenth Amendment is not a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination at the voting booth on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment was unmistakably adopted to enlarge the prohibition on state sponsored discrimination mentioned in the 14th, and extend it to include a new subject matter, but only to the extent that the prohibited discrimination is based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”…the People not yet willing to provide the same federally enforceable guarantee to the female gender!

The assertion that the 14th Amendment prohibits a wide variety of discrimination such as discrimination based upon sex, [see Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI Case], is totally refuted when reading the 19th Amendment which was adopted by the people to specifically forbid yet a new kind of discrimination, discrimination at the voting both based upon sex. Why adopt the 19th Amendment forbidding the right to vote to be “denied or abridged” on account of “SEX.” if the Fourteenth Amendment already prohibited sex discrimination as claimed by Justice Ginsburg?

And finally, why would there have been a proposed so-call “equal rights amendment” offered in the 1980’s for adoption to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit sex discrimination by appropriate legislation [which was voted down by the People] if the 14th amendment already granted such power to Congress, or such a prohibition already existed in the federal constitution?

The truth is, members of our Supreme Court are subjugating our constitutional system and supplanting their personal whims and fancies as being within the legislative intent of our Constitution as contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it--- such action being a blatant rebellion against our Constitution system and meeting the definition of tyranny!


JWK
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:57 pm
I am betwixt and between here, and really want to learn.

This multipage thread is not all that clear for the beginner, or even the moderately interested layperson.

I suppose you all would mind laying your understanding out again, but I'd appreciate shortish summaries of each, sans attributive cut and pastes.

I am not sure which way or ways I think and I would pay attention to your answers.

On Debra's blankets, she may be right, and I have been known to agree with her, but I can't read these. Others who differ may have missed the boat or not.

I may be unusually susceptible to cut and paste sleep. I know even I have grasped points by their use, so I am not entirely against them.

Still, I'd appreciate some summaries without Other Side (whatever it is) Dumping.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 09:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
And--I'm honestly not being contentuous here, but it seems so often SCOTUS rulings take on a life of their own--when my state legilature limits power of eminent domain and the city council appeals that ruling all the way to the SC, we'll still see it bounced back to the state?


A city is a political subdivision of a state. It is a creature of the state and may only exercise municipal powers in accordance with state statutes.

Perhaps your state constitutional takings clause provides the following: "The State Legislature (or General Assembly) shall enact no law authorizing private property to be taken for public use without just compensation."

Accordingly, the only takings permissible would be those takings authorized by the state legislature. If the state legislature does not authorize your city council to take property for "economic development," then your city has no recourse except to follow state law. A municipality has no powers of eminent domain except those powers explicitly authorized by state statutes enacted by your state legislature.

The city council has absolutely no "federal claim" against the state that it could possibly bring in a federal court and appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

A municipal corporation, created by a state for the better ordering of government, has no privileges or immunities under the Federal Constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator. WILLIAMS v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, 289 U.S. 36 (1933) (citing Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 , 43 S.Ct. 534, 29 A.L.R. 1471; City of Newark v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 192 , 43 S.Ct. 539; Worcester v. Worcester Consolidated Street Ry. Co., 196 U.S. 539 , 25 S.Ct. 327; Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil Co., 250 U.S. 394 , 39 S. Ct. 526; Risty v. Chicago, R.I. & Pac. Ry. Co., 270 U.S. 378, 390 , 46 S.Ct. 236; Railroad Commission v. Los Angeles R. R. Corporation, 280 U.S. 145, 156 , 50 S.Ct. 71).
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 10:39 pm
john w k wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:

JWK:

You claim to be an constitutional expert who runs his own "American Constitutional Research Service." Accordingly, if you have the slightest idea of the things you are talking about, you should be able to read my posts and understand them.


Making things up, again, Debra? Please post my words in which I claimed to be a “constitutional expert“.

Do you understand what the word “research” means as in American Constitutional Research Service?



An expert is a person with special skills or knowledge of a certain subject. What is your purpose of placing "ACRS" after your signature if not to lend credibility to your words as a person who holds himself out as an expert on the subject?

I know what "research" means. Perhaps we can have the box boy from the local grocery store conduct legal research; perhaps we can have the waitress from the local pub conduct atomic research. However, I do believe we ought to have specially-trained people conduct research in the areas of their expertise.

I am a Juris Doctor. I conduct legal research. However, I don't find it necessary to sign my posts and place "J.D." after my signature. Why should I care to place initials after my name unless for some reason I desired to BOLSTER my opinion by designating myself as a person with special skills or knowledge with respect to the law?

If you are not trying to BOLSTER your opinions and appear more credible by portraying yourself as an expert on the Constitution, why place "ACRS" after your name? Are you trying to create a false illusion concerning your expertise on the subject?

****

Good night all. Be back in a few days.

Debra
J.D.
T.I.R.E.D.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 10:49 pm
If Deb is tired, I am tireder.


Can anyone just go ahead and summarize the disparate points of view?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 11:27 pm
ossobuco wrote:
I am betwixt and between here, and really want to learn.



Quick response . . . must get to bed . . . .

The Bill of Rights (the First ten amendments to the United States Constitution) is a limitation on FEDERAL government power.

Beginning in the early 1900's, the Supreme Court began to selectively incorporate protections in the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and made them enforceable against the States.

See The Incorporation Debate

Incorporated or Not Incorporated?

Quote:
1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected).
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Fully incorporated.


There are people, such as JWK, who do not accept incorporation. But, it's a done deal. It's the law of the land. It's the reality that we have to live with. Smile

Could you imagine an America where we couldn't cry out, "I have the right to free speech protected by the Constitution . . . I'm proud to be an American!"

It would be quite a different America if we had to say this instead: "I have the right to free speech protected by the federal Constitution from federal government infringement, but not from state government infringement . . . I'm proud to be an American . . . but I'm not so sure about my state!" Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 07:08 am
Debra_Law wrote:
john w k wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:

JWK:

You claim to be an constitutional expert who runs his own "American Constitutional Research Service." Accordingly, if you have the slightest idea of the things you are talking about, you should be able to read my posts and understand them.


Making things up, again, Debra? Please post my words in which I claimed to be a “constitutional expert“.

Do you understand what the word “research” means as in American Constitutional Research Service?



An expert is a person with special skills or knowledge of a certain subject. What is your purpose of placing "ACRS" after your signature if not to lend credibility to your words as a person who holds himself out as an expert on the subject?


Misdirecting the subject matter again, Debra?

The request was “Please post my words in which I claimed to be a “constitutional expert”.

You did make the unsubstantiated statement, “You claim to be an constitutional expert…”, so, please provide a link to my words making such a claim.

You also leveled the unsubstantiated charge that, “You know exactly what my objections are to your criticism. It centers on your hypocrisy. I specifically set forth your prior inconsistent stance on the Fourteenth Amendment that makes your current criticism of the Supreme Court a farce.”

Once again, Debra, please post my previous words and the words in this thread which support your claim. Or is you charge based upon one of your erroneous presumptions about what is in my mind, or what you falsely assert is in my mind? Explain. What inconsistent stance? Explain. Quote my specific words and then explain.

In addition, Debra, you wrote to me: “You painted yourself into a corner, and you don't want to address your inconsistent construction of the Fourteenth Amendment because that would require substantial backtracking and double talk. I understand your desire to avoid my post, but at least be honest. Don't pretend that my post didn't make sense. You know what I'm talking about.”

My response, Debra, was a reasonable request asking you to substantiate this charge. But, as appears to be a consistent pattern with you, you are quick to level unsubstantiated charges directed at my character, and fail or refuse to substantiate your charges by quoting my words establishing the charge as fact.

In essences, Debra, you have level a number of unsubstantiated personal attacks upon my character which violates the rules of this forum.

Debra, neither of use can learn from each other if the subject matter of our constitutional system is continually misdirected and repeatedly degenerates into personal attacks and glib remarks regarding what is posted. Why you engage in such activity is beyond me, but, as I stated before, such behavior interferes with a productive discussion.


JWK
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 09:36 am
jwk wrote:
In essences, Debra, you have level a number of unsubstantiated personal attacks upon my character which violates the rules of this forum.


In what sense are they personal attacks upon your character? Her attempts to point out your inconsistencies? Laughing If that were against the rules, these here threads would be bare.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 02:22 pm
Thomas Sowell addresses my concern re this issue better than I did.

Excerpt:
Quote:
In this case -- Kelo v. New London -- the private parties to whom the government would turn over confiscated properties include a hotel, restaurants, shops, and a pharmaceutical company. . . .

. . . . What the latest Supreme Court decision does with verbal sleight-of-hand is change the Constitution's requirement of "public use" to a more expansive power to confiscate private property for whatever is called "public purpose" -- including turning that property over to some other private party. . . .

. . . .When the 5 to 4 Supreme Court majority "rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" because of the "evolving needs of society," it violated the Constitutional separation of powers on which the American system of government is based. . . .

. . . If Constitutional rights of individuals are to be waved aside because of "deference" to another branch of government, then the citizens may as well not have Constitutional rights.


Property rites
Thomas Sowell
June 27, 2005

You may own your own home and expect to live there the rest of your life. But keep your bags packed, because the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that local politicians can take your property away and turn it over to someone else, just by using the magic words "public purpose."

We're not talking about the government taking your home in order to build a reservoir or a highway for the benefit of the public. The Constitution always allowed the government to take private property for "public use," provided the property owner was paid "just compensation."

What the latest Supreme Court decision does with verbal sleight-of-hand is change the Constitution's requirement of "public use" to a more expansive power to confiscate private property for whatever is called "public purpose" -- including turning that property over to some other private party.

In this case -- Kelo v. New London -- the private parties to whom the government would turn over confiscated properties include a hotel, restaurants, shops, and a pharmaceutical company.

These are not public uses, as the Constitution requires, but are said to serve "public purposes," as courts have expanded the concept beyond the language of the 5th Amendment -- reflecting those "evolving" circumstances so dear to judges who rewrite the Constitution to suit their own tastes.

No sane person has ever denied that circumstances change or that laws need to change to meet new circumstances. But that is wholly different from saying that judges are the ones to decide which laws need changing and in what way at what time.

What are legislatures for except to legislate? What is the separation of powers for except to keep legislative, executive and judicial powers separate?

When the 5 to 4 Supreme Court majority "rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" because of the "evolving needs of society," it violated the Constitutional separation of powers on which the American system of government is based.

When the Supreme Court majority referred to its "deference to legislative judgments" about the taking of property, it was as disingenuous as it was inconsistent. If Constitutional rights of individuals are to be waved aside because of "deference" to another branch of government, then the citizens may as well not have Constitutional rights.

What are these rights supposed to protect the citizens from, if not the government?

This very Court, just days before, showed no such deference to a state's law permitting the execution of murderers who were not yet 18. Such selective "deference" amounts to judicial policy-making rather than the carrying out of the law.

Surely the Justices must know that politicians whose whole careers have been built on their ability to spin words can always come up with some words that will claim that there is what they can call a "public purpose" in what they are doing.

How many private homeowners can afford to litigate such claims all the way up and down the judicial food chain? Apartment dwellers who are thrown out on the street by the bulldozers are even less able to defend themselves with litigation.

The best that can be said for the Supreme Court majority's opinion is that it follows -- and extends -- certain judicial precedents. But, as Justice Clarence Thomas said in dissent, these "misguided lines of precedent" need to be reconsidered, so as to "return to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause" in the Constitution.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent points out that the five Justices in the majority -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy -- "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property." As a result, she adds: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

In other words, politicians can replace your home with whatever they expect will pay more taxes than you do -- and call their money grab a "public purpose."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050627.shtml
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 05:54 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
jwk wrote:
In essences, Debra, you have level a number of unsubstantiated personal attacks upon my character which violates the rules of this forum.


In what sense are they personal attacks upon your character? Her attempts to point out your inconsistencies? Laughing If that were against the rules, these here threads would be bare.


When one charges another with making inconsistent comments, and charges them with being a hypocrite, that is an attack upon one’s character.

You suggest she has made an attempt to “…point out…” my “…inconsistencies”? Well, the truth is, Debra made no attempt to point out any inconsistencies in what I wrote, even though I asked her several times to quote my words showing such inconsistencies!

Debra made unsubstantiated statements and charges, some of which were directed at my character, and another claiming I said something I never said. When a person makes a claim which calls into question a persons character, such as making the claim the person is a hypocrite, which Debra did, or makes the claim the person’s positions are inconsistent, which Debra did, or makes the claim the person has said something, which Debra did, I would expect that person would be prepared to substantiate those claims with various quotes from the person, which Debra has not done.

some of the rules of this forum provide:

* Be specific

Few things are more intellectually irritating (not to mention worthless) than reading some uncautious and poorly thought out claim such as "Liberals never care about truth", or "The conservative mindset precludes empathy". If you happen to be a fan of the TV show "Crossfire" and think the quality of discourse there is just peachy, then you might perhaps be more at home on some other site. Such generalizations are never really true, and they merely function as cliches which let the writer off the hook - he doesn't have to think, it's already done for him.

* Verify your claims...differentiate facts and opinions

Claims you want to argue in your posts ought to be clearly stated, but specific and not unhelpfully generalized. Try to find examples. If your claim isn't something you are able to verify, note that it is your opinion only. Where you can verify, show the sources so others can check. Provide links wherever they are aidful.

* Request logical arguments of yourself

It isn't expected that everyone has or needs to study a course in logic. But there are some simple things to keep in mind when you write your posts. For example, address the claim that is being argued rather than the speaker of it. For another example, don't assume something must be true simply because an 'authority' says so, or because some large number of people believe it to be so.


I do not believe that “…these here threads would be bare…” if the participants followed the above rules. The rules, when followed, not only lead to a productive discussion, but help to keep the participants focused on the subject matter rather than misdirecting the subject matter to irrelevant table talk and inquiries concerning the personal characteristics of the participants.


JWK
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2005 06:09 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas Sowell addresses my concern re this issue better than I did.


Excerpt:
Quote:
In this case -- Kelo v. New London -- the private parties to whom the government would turn over confiscated properties include a hotel, restaurants, shops, and a pharmaceutical company. . . .

. . . . What the latest Supreme Court decision does with verbal sleight-of-hand is change the Constitution's requirement of "public use" to a more expansive power to confiscate private property for whatever is called "public purpose" -- including turning that property over to some other private party. . . .

. . . .When the 5 to 4 Supreme Court majority "rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" because of the "evolving needs of society," it violated the Constitutional separation of powers on which the American system of government is based. . . .

. . . If Constitutional rights of individuals are to be waved aside because of "deference" to another branch of government, then the citizens may as well not have Constitutional rights.


I think you will also appreciate:

Confiscating property by Walter Williams, who I have admired for years. Here is a quote from the article:

The Court's decision helps explain the vicious attacks on any judicial nominees who might use framer-intent to interpret the U.S. Constitution. America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance. There is nothing complex about those 12 words the framers wrote to protect us from governmental property confiscation. You need a magician to reach the conclusion reached by the Court's majority. I think the socialist attack on judicial nominees who'd use framer-intent in their interpretation of the Constitution might also explain their attack on our Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why? Because when they come to take our property, they don't want to risk buckshot in their but-s. [/i]

JWK
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 03:15 am
"America's socialists" Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:41 am
LOL, yeah we have a few of those Goodfielder.

John, I am also a fan of Williams and read him always; listen when he happens to be a guest host or interviewee; quote him now and then. I took part of the above posted Williams' quote, however, to be an example of Williams' satirical humor and not to be taken absolutely literally. I do think he believes that socialistic control freaks want to eliminate the guns because they think the people can't be trusted with them. I'm not sure he thinks the gun issue is really related to any property confiscation issue, however.

I've read and listened to him enough to know that he does 100% believe this:

"America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance."

And I think he is probably right.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 07:15 am
Of course you think he is probably right. As the site's propaganda eater par excellence little is more predictable that what you think is probably right.

It's been a real learning experience to watch you folks. I really had no idea that humans in community might be so easily manipulatable. This isn't fun learning, like seeing a cool documentary on plate tectonics, it's rather more like finding out you have cancer.

This decision (which I don't like) poses its threat from one aspect of the traditional right...from wealth and connection and profit-motive - 'what's good for business is good for all'.

But in keeping with the propaganda story, it's socialist. It's extremist commie secular baby-killing judicial figures.

It is so intellectually pathetic that I really want to slap you each with a smelly fish.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 08:14 am
Just to quickly clarify, these are forum guidelines: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2594 There is no such thing as a violation of the guidelines. They are guides and not rules, and compliance is not required by the Moderating Team.

These are the Terms of Service of the site: http://www.able2know.com/disclaimer.php

Anyone believing that another member is in violation of the Terms of Service should feel free to click the Report button in the upper right corner of every post.

Anyone with questions about moderation should also feel free to contact the Help Desk. We will be happy to answer your question. Please do not ask questions about moderation, etc. on the site as we could miss them. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 08:45 am
Foxfyre wrote:
LOL, yeah we have a few of those Goodfielder.

John, I am also a fan of Williams and read him always; listen when he happens to be a guest host or interviewee; quote him now and then. I took part of the above posted Williams' quote, however, to be an example of Williams' satirical humor and not to be taken absolutely literally. I do think he believes that socialistic control freaks want to eliminate the guns because they think the people can't be trusted with them. I'm not sure he thinks the gun issue is really related to any property confiscation issue, however.

I've read and listened to him enough to know that he does 100% believe this:

"America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance."

And I think he is probably right.



Foxfyre,

I do think there is a big picture which more fully explains our current situation in America, and socialists in America play but a small, but important part in the big picture.

I believe socialist in America are nothing more than useful idiots which are a handy lightening rod for folks in government who are the real winners in a big “socialistic” government operation.

I wrote the following article sometime ago, and I think it gives a clear perspective concerning a predictable phenomenon which occurs with the creation of government___ government takes on its own life, like a living creature, a predator, and uses its authority in almost every deceitful manner imaginable to grow and expand and feeds itself from the public treasury.


JWK


Our national debt, and a Congress in rebellion



There is much talk these days about the national debt. So, just what is the size of the national debt? For an answer see: Measuring the Federal Government's Unfunded Liability

Our folks in Washington have created a national debt so staggering it is impossible for the ordinary person to relate to such numbers, but which our nation’s younger generation [those just entering the job market___ our MTV Crowd] will be taxed to extinguish, or, those who hold securities of the United States [ Notes, Bills and Bonds] will be flatly defrauded of their investment in Congress’ profligate borrowing and spending habits.

It is beyond belief that a hard working American would support the leaders of either of the two political parties during election time. The sad truth is, the leaders of both parties are responsible for enslaving our nation’s children with their votes in Congress Assembled___ votes which have created a national debt of about $50 trillion!

Why is it so difficult for the people of American to not realize why there is such fighting between Republican and Democrat leaders during election time? Is it not obvious to all that one thing remains constant after each election? Those who win elections get to be in charge of who will be hired and fired from the countless political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington___ many of these jobs being nothing more than a job to redistribute wealth taxed away from hard working Americans!

To get a perspective on the countless number of political plum jobs created by our folks in Washington, take a look at a 1956 telephone directory under federal government and you will find two pages of federal government offices. Look today and that two pages has exploded into a telephone directory that challenges the telephone directory size of many of America’s cities. But what is most astonishing when one realizes how large the federal government has grown, and how it now manages to meddle into almost every aspect of the people’s private lives, is to read the words of James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 45 and then compare his words to the multiple listings for federal government agencies.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."[/i]

Having identified the intended functions of the federal government, intended to operate on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce, here is a current A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies, click on any particular listing to find the countless plum jobs created in that department, many of which have six figure salaries!

And what does the phrase, “political plum job“ mean on Capitol Hill? Do you have any idea how many political plum jobs have been created since 1954, and the amount of tax revenue which goes just to pay the salaries of those appointed to political plum jobs? Of course, the above questions do not even take into account that many of the plum jobs created are for functions not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, such as the current Department of Education. And, just what are some of the plum jobs at the Department of Education? For a partial list see: Officials—U.S. Department of Education

And what do these "OFFICIALS" do at the Department of Education? Surprise, they pilfer money from the Department’s budget into their own pockets See: The Department of Embezzlement

Fact is, our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion. Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute to a gangster government which ignores our most basic law…our constitutions, state and federal.

John William Kurowski, Founder,

American Constitutional Research Service

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” [/i]___Declaration of Independence

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:31:52