Time to give up the ghost and start anew? It's approaching. - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: The Unoffically Offical Unoffical #1 Fan site
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2005-06-25, 03:30 AM   [Ignore Me] #1
MrVicchio
Contributor
Major General
 
MrVicchio's Avatar
 
Time to give up the ghost and start anew? It's approaching.


After reading, and re-reading the lastest crap out of the Supreme Court.. I am sick. Sick to my stomach, and perhaps a bit hell bent on taking out my anger.

America doesn't get it, we just lost something that makes even the worst fear of the Patriot Act look small in comparison... and people don't CARE!

The supreme court just gave away our rights to property for the "collective good"...

I have been telling my wife the revolutions coming, she thinks I am paranoid... but after this... were another step closer. I am a republican because I believe that the party is best suited for defending US. But I haven't seen outrage over this decision, Bush's spokesman said if Emminant Domain were used ot take the Bush Ranch he'd "respect the rule of law".

F--- Bush. I am pissed to hell.
__________________
Back from the internet!
MrVicchio is offline  
Old 2005-06-25, 10:05 AM   [Ignore Me] #2
DaShiznit
Major
 
DaShiznit's Avatar
 


F--- Bush. I am pissed to hell.
I think I'm going to go cry because of the sheer beauty of seeing you say that. But what's more, I agree. That decision was bullshit. You know, I very rarely support the amending of the constitution to overturn a Supreme Court decision (ala flag burning), but this is just wrong. Hell, I'm pretty sure that it would pass, because this isn't a partisan issue, the right and the left are pissed about this.
__________________
DaShiznit is offline  
Old 2005-06-25, 05:42 PM   [Ignore Me] #3
MrVicchio
Contributor
Major General
 
MrVicchio's Avatar
 


My dad and I talked this over, neither party wants to touch this.

The left likes government power for the "common good" and the right peddles influence with and from business. Either side from a "political machine" point of view...l wont touch this.

His hope, is that the GOP is silent because of the pending Supreme Court fight(s). They don't want to start the fight just yet. Personally, I fear that both sides will lsiten to the political/business influences over the Constitution. And in that case it will take grass roots power to beat this genie back into the bottle, if that is possible.
__________________
Back from the internet!
MrVicchio is offline  
Old 2005-06-26, 04:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #4
Firefly
Contributor
Major General
 
Firefly's Avatar
 


Eminent Domain is not for "public good", it's for "public use". As in, public facilities like a road. Not revenue-generating installations like a Wal-mart or Target.

But what does this have to do with Bush? The people who voted for it were largely Democrat, from what I understand.
__________________
Firefly is offline  
Old 2005-06-27, 03:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #5
MrVicchio
Contributor
Major General
 
MrVicchio's Avatar
 


It's thef fact he nor any GOP member has said a word against this ruling. THAT'S why I am soo pissed.
__________________
Back from the internet!
MrVicchio is offline  
Old 2005-06-27, 09:08 AM   [Ignore Me] #6
_-Gunslinger-_
First Sergeant
 


Imminent domain was used to build the rail-roads near my house the same rail roads that were later sold to the companies for next to nothing (when compared to the costs of building and the families that were forced to relocate). So while it can be used for good, I have proof not 100 yards from my house of how retarded it can be.
_-Gunslinger-_ is offline  
Old 2005-06-29, 06:38 PM   [Ignore Me] #7
JakeLogan
Major
 


It gets better, one of the Judges that ruled for it may lose his house!

Quote:
Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Caf" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Last edited by JakeLogan; 2005-06-29 at 06:39 PM.
JakeLogan is offline  
Old 2005-07-07, 01:31 AM   [Ignore Me] #8
KSoDBartman
Private
 


Originally Posted by DaShiznit
You know, I very rarely support the amending of the constitution to overturn a Supreme Court decision (ala flag burning), but this is just wrong. Hell, I'm pretty sure that it would pass, because this isn't a partisan issue, the right and the left are pissed about this.
Can you amend the Constitution to say what it already says?

Anyway, there was recently an amendment offered to the bigass appropriations bill going through Congress right now that would prohibit federal funds from being used in eminent domain cases like the one in Kelo. Here's how everyone in the House voted on the amendment. Noticeably absent from the "ayes" is Democratic heavy hitter Nancy Pelosi.

There's also the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005.
__________________
"Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex."
-Unknown sage
KSoDBartman is offline  
Old 2005-07-09, 02:17 AM   [Ignore Me] #9
Infernus
Lieutenant General
 
Infernus's Avatar
 


AINSI IL COMMENCE ! VIVE LA RVOLUTION !

Libert, galit, fraternit, ou la mort!
__________________
Infernus is offline  
Old 2005-07-21, 11:36 PM   [Ignore Me] #10
ChronoSphere
Corporal
 


While the Supreme Court ruling can't be changed until we get different justices on there, in the meanwhile we do have an outlet via state legislatures. Municipalities and counties, the governmental entities most prone to using eminent domain in this fashion, exist at the pleasure of the States, which along with the Federal government, are the only constitutionally mandated soverign entities. If the States pass laws defining what counties and municipalites can and cannot use eminent domain for, that should solve the problem in the short term.
ChronoSphere is offline  
Old 2005-07-25, 08:11 PM   [Ignore Me] #11
MrVicchio
Contributor
Major General
 
MrVicchio's Avatar
 


This is true Chrono, and there are a few law makers trying to limit the damage from this. Roberts choice as a nominee has me very excited in hoping this gets changed.

We shall see.
__________________
Back from the internet!
MrVicchio is offline  
Old 2005-07-29, 02:38 PM   [Ignore Me] #12
Ait'al
Contributor
General
 
Ait'al's Avatar
 


Off topic: What does bush have to do with a man with no political ties who beleived in the giving up of power and the humility of public service? You know who im talking too.
Ait'al is offline  
Old 2005-08-01, 08:40 AM   [Ignore Me] #13
Ait'al
Contributor
General
 
Ait'al's Avatar
 


BTW when did emminent domain leave the grounds of the constitution and the concept of making a military port for the purpose of defense. If you dont know before september 11 when all polotics were distracted the biggest democratic + focus on bush was from his constant and sometimes silent pushes in times of eminent domain. They were at that time rumored to be pushing for impeachment and very harsh charges etc. If you dont know the concept that now somehow allows goverment to take land for public use, if im not mistaken, was originally from the executive power to take it on a federal lv for the purpose of defense, and then only sparingly and when in real need. Beyond that it directly violates the 4th or 6th ammendmant to use it for any other purpose, IE may not seize property without due process! (IE due proccess mean you must have a court/trial determin it. It also means you MUST have commited a crime to be brought to that court to begin with. You cannont have stuff taken away, based on federal law, without having commited a crime for them to take it away, basically based on repaying the court of police for the charges you incured to the government, like a tax if you will. correct me if im wrong.....)That one thing in the constitution was the ONE exception. Now they are useing as an excuse to violate the very bases of the constitution. Odd since it was probly seen as the safer lv of governent to put that power in since the very objective of the executive branch, and especially its head, is the upholdong of hte constitution and all of its concepts and the law in it based on its intent. Now its helping its abuse along, which by law intales neglect ignorance, and at any turn abuse! Any member of any position appointed or trusted etc, is immediatly responsible by law to be fully aware of all powers and responsibilities uppon the moment of there innaguration or appointment. Anything done against those powers is illegal without excuse and is either then said to be ignorance or neglect or both. All of which carry punishments as well as abuse. This could have been delt with easily in theory. If the government were truly prudent as bush always puts it. It would just be him they would be prudent against if they were to uphold the law and protect teh constitution from him.

On that comment in parrenthesis up there about due proccess... Any action inturn where property is taken without a crime having been commited is then an automatic determination of abuse of power, by the executive branch. In ll cases! And of the courts for not having shown it was and having those police, in normal cases, put in jail for having commited such a large offense. All circumstances, where that would happen, would by law automatically be vialolating many other laws, especially those of the constitution, by shear rule of how those laws are written and how theyre circumstances overlap each other.

On another note since this is commen. The bill of rights is not an exception, its the rule. And the very bases of how the design of the court system was determined internally etc. Its is the very bases of all design of the governemnt, and that design is crafted in the law, not in peoples good wishes.

Last edited by Ait'al; 2005-08-01 at 08:49 AM.
Ait'al is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > General Forums > Political Debate Forum

Bookmarks

Wiki Activity Read More >
Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.