Site Headlines
Please scroll down for posts on main page...
| WARNING: THIS SITE FEATURES ORIGINAL THINKING...Jim Croce once sang Don't tug on Superman's cape..., which seems like reasonable advice should we not wish to anger the supreme powers. We do have this duality in our culture: the Superman that is the state collective, the leftist call to a politics of meaning managed by the state, the deification of "we're from the government and we'll take care of you" - versus the Superman that celebrates individual freedom, private property, freedom of conscience, free enterprise, and limited government. We humbly take on the latter's mantle and, eschewing the feeble tug, we dare to PULL, in hope of seeing freedom's rescue from the encroaching nanny state. We invite you, dear reader, to come and pull as well... Additionally, if you assume that means that we are unflinching, unquestioning GOP zombies, that would be incorrect. We reject statism in any form and call on individuals in our country to return to the original, classical liberalism of our founders. (We're also passionate about art, photography, cooking, technology, Judeo/Christian values, and satire as unique, individual pursuits of happiness to celebrate.) |
Superman's product of the century (so far):
You change my Constitution?
I'll change my flag:
Jeff reports that Hindrocket is vascillating on Kelo and nicely sets things straight:
From my perspective, the argument goes that if New London found that particular property so appealing as part of its economic revitalization plan, the city should have paid whatever the market called for in order to secure the land from its rightful owners, rather than asserting the legality of an non-negotiated buy-out “contract” under eminent domain. Or else they should have looked elsewhere for development property. Because for what it’s worth, I think that the “use of eminent domain by a city in furtherance of an economic development project” IS “per se unconstitutional” when it doesn’t meet the narrow standard of public use (which should not, from either an originalist or natural rights perspective, include things such as increased tax revenue garnered from what is in function a forcible exchange of private property ownership rights from one party to another that is “brokered” by the state).
One doesn't need to be a lawyer to be a strict constructionist.
Michelle Malkin has a good round-up of the continued reaction to the SCOTUS supported land grab - and why Janice Rogers Brown is the judge of choice.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83455816469e200d834237a6a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference: What to do with your eminent domain:
» We'll show you what to do with your eminent domain from 1or2thoughts
...another entertaining idea for showing our distaste of a Supreme Court that has forgotten what it is to be supreme of. [Read More]
TrackPulled on Jul 6, 2005 11:58:03 AM
