See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Evicting David Souter - do not miss this one.
Source:
The Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... icles/000/000/006/668djehl.asp
Published: Feb 13, 2006
Author: Matt Labash
Post Date: 2006-02-04 17:32:35 by Lod
Keywords: Evicting, Souter, David
Views: 51
Comments: 7
Weare, New Hampshire LOGAN DARROW CLEMENTS doesn't seem like the sort of fellow who'd go around stealing the houses of Supreme Court justices. He's mild mannered and laughs easily, often at his own jokes. Physically he resembles a less creepy Ralph Reed: He looks like a 36-year-old altar boy whose mom made him scrub up and dress for dinner. An Ayn Rand devotee, he heads an objectivist discussion group back home in Los Angeles. A zippy evening for the group might entail a field trip to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center or sitting through a presentation on The Force Minimization Theory of Ethical Taxation. As an objectivist, Clements is committed to Rand's notion of rational self-interest, self-reliance, and pretty much anything beginning with the prefix "self." Like all objectivists, he profoundly distrusts government, which has a "monopoly on the initiation of force," so he'd only seek public office reluctantly. When conscience (or rational self-interest) called in 2003, he tried to do just that in the California gubernatorial recall election. But there was a whiff of the born-loser libertarian about him. Despite proposing crowd-pleasers such as privatization of all public schools, he finished 131st out of 135 candidates. He was beaten by the likes of Angelyne, a model with no last name who wanted to paint the statehouse hot pink, and Kelly Kimball, a business executive who ran as a member of the ButtMonkey Beer party. If Clements was a man whose causes had not yet found full employment for his talents, that all changed on June 23, 2005, the day the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. decision. It was also the day that Clements, in response to that decision, resolved to swipe the house of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and put up in its place the Lost Liberty Hotel. The Kelo decision might well be the most important in the history of eminent domain, a term that can cause instant drowsiness among the easily bored. Though "eminent domain" sounds like a badly named subdivision, it is not as euphemistic as it seems. It derives from the Latin dominium eminens, meaning "supreme lordship," giving its victims an unsubtle hint as to how they'll fare if eminent domain is used against them. If the government asks you to sell your property at its price and you decline, you can be forcibly removed. It's the ultimate buyer's market. Eminent domain's dictionary definition is "the right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner." That must be from an old dictionary, since "public use," after decades of constitutional erosion, has been transformed into "public purpose." In practice, a "public purpose" is anything that land-grabbing cities and the private developers they're in bed with want. Throughout the country, cities now continually seize properties for every reason from economic development to elimination of "blight." As Dana Berliner writes in her book Public Power, Private Gain, "blight" these days can include "too-small side yards, 'diverse ownership' (different people own properties next to each other), 'inadequate planning,' and lack of a two-car attached garage." CONTINUED 1 2 Next > Print Crud - please go to the website to finish this one - long, but great. Enjoy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lodwick (#0)
I'm surprised at how well-organized and how much effort Clements has put in. Great description of Souter's decrepit house. Makes me feel better about my own house ;^) When the Weekly Standard makes fellow traveler Ralph Reed the standard of creepiness, you know Ralph Reed is toast.
Truly laughing out loud at this. Too freaking funny. (I feel the same way.) Thanks for reading this one.
Thanks, Lodwick! I hope to read more about this latest chapter in the Lost Liberty Hotel saga, when a media outlet other than The Israeli Gazette (to which I refuse to give a click) publishes it. Nothing personal!
You'll find that NH folks take great offense to having ANYONE'S rights stomped on, even if the person was asking for it... (Souter, in voting yes on that decision) I'd be shocked if the good folks of Weare supported Clement. It follows that those who stand against the S.C. ruling in favor of eminent domain cannot allow themselves to justify using it against Souter no matter who badly he deserves it. That's just the way it is... Lucky for Souter. I've lived in NH for 5 1/2 years now, and I've discovered that the folks here take their principles quite seriously. They are straight shooters who'll listen to your arguments but if you don't succeed in convincing them, will band together to block an outsider from gaining any support. Outsiders are looked on with profound suspicion, especially outsiders who want to take someone else's property or who want to make changes. NHerites like NH just the way it is. Town meetings are well attended and battles over ideals break out regularly. Most citizens here know plenty about the government and laws proposed. We have to, the Massholes to the south constantly remind us what happens when citizens DON'T pay attention. Another thing, outsiders trampling on private property with the intention of hurting the owner is reason enough to shoot ya. It's just not done. NHerites wholeheartedly believe in "live free or die". A person's land is theirs to do with as they please, just don't be trying to tell others what to do with theirs. Watch the story through to its conclusion and I guarantee that you'll see laws passed that PROTECT the citizens from the supreme court ruling. THAT'S NH justice. If you want revenge and special interests to influence lawmakers, ask the massholes for help. That's their specialty.
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
I hope that you're wrong on this one. It's like saying that murder, rape, mayhem is wrong, but if my neighbor commits it - then, well, let it slide. You guys rethink think this one.
It's like saying that murder, rape, mayhem is wrong, but if my neighbor commits it - then, well, let it slide. You guys rethink think this one. Read it again... It says that those who are against murder, rape, and mayhem won't murder, rape, or commit mayhem against someone who says it's legal EVEN IF THEY DESERVE IT for making it legal. NH DISAGREES wtih the SCOTUS ruling that allows seizing property so it follows that NH disagrees with seizing Souter's property TOO... even though he deserves it.
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
ping
I don't know about you, but the present STATE OF THE UNION scares the crap outa me...
he resembles a less creepy Ralph Reed
I've already said too much.
#2. To: MUDDOG (#1)
Great description of Souter's decrepit house. Makes me feel better about my own house ;^)
#3. To: lodwick (#2)
#4. To: lodwick (#0)
#5. To: siagiah (#4)
It follows that those who stand against the S.C. ruling in favor of eminent domain cannot allow themselves to justify using it against Souter no matter who badly he deserves it.
#6. To: lodwick (#5)
I hope that you're wrong on this one.
#7. To: H-A-L-F-W-I-T-T, MUDDOG, lodwick (#6)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest