Kelo v. New London Round II: The Grab that Keeps on Grabbing

Pete, hopefully this will wake Americans up…but I have my doubts. It appears that Americans are too willing to give up their rights and freedoms. Recent history is proving this.

As you know, emminent domain means the government can take property, but is required to compensate the fair value of property seize, and use it for public use only….highways….public streets, and so on. It took a couple hundred years for ‘Justices’ to claim there exists a right per Kelo vs.New London.

In a similar way that previous case law decisions led to the
so-called privacy right to abortion….the same pattern will probably emerge to claim a right to same-sex marriage. That isn’t here yet but decisions about cases in Texas and Michigan are setting up that prospect. In both cases activist Supreme Court judges are making up law and creating what does not exist in the Constitution.
Same-sex marriage is being pushed through to legitimize homosexuals as a protected class deserving special rights, protections, and preferences. This will take more liberty (what remains) from everyone else (in the same way the liberty of men was taken away by women over the past 40 years).

Kelo vs. New London is different in that many Americans are vulnerable. Maybe this will wake people up.

In California, a recent court decision now allows employees to sue for sexual harrassment when another employee, a co-worker, has a relationship with a manager. Sexual harrassment was meant to rectify true harrassment but has morphed from that into a windfall for lawyers and greedy women to sue based on their own interpretation of what harrassment is—allowing the ‘victim’ to define harrassment—and has morphed again into allowing those who are actually not direct victims of any harrassment at all to sue. How crazy is that? We Americans give up our rights too easily. (Maybe Kelo vs. New London won’t wake people up.) Employees in California are going to get even more paranoid about being accused of something unfairly (particularly the men)from other employees (particularly the women)than they have been over the past 20 years. California I believe, was a member of the former Soviet Union. It sure seems that way anyways.

I listened to one home owner (radio)in New London who is fighting to keep is home. The home is waterfront property. Granted, New London is not La Jolla, but the fair market value according to him is somewhere between $300K and $400K. NLDC has offered him $60K.

We Americans had better wake up. The government, the elitists, and the powerful corporations are making the rest of us serfs. And it’s happenng so fast I’m not sure the serfs have much of a chance anymore.

I hope I’m wrong.

Pete, hopefully this will wake Americans up…but I have my doubts. It appears that Americans are too willing to give up their rights and freedoms. Recent history is proving this.

As you know, emminent domain means the government can take property, but is required to compensate the fair value of property seize, and use it for public use only….highways….public streets, and so on. It took a couple hundred years for ‘Justices’ to claim there exists a right per Kelo vs.New London.

In a similar way that previous case law decisions led to the
so-called privacy right to abortion….the same pattern will probably emerge to claim a right to same-sex marriage. That isn’t here yet but decisions about cases in Texas and Michigan are setting up that prospect. In both cases activist Supreme Court judges are making up law and creating what does not exist in the Constitution.
Same-sex marriage is being pushed through to legitimize homosexuals as a protected class deserving special rights, protections, and preferences. This will take more liberty (what remains) from everyone else (in the same way the liberty of men was taken away by women over the past 40 years).

Kelo vs. New London is different in that many Americans are vulnerable. Maybe this will wake people up.

In California, a recent court decision now allows employees to sue for sexual harrassment when another employee, a co-worker, has a relationship with a manager. Sexual harrassment was meant to rectify true harrassment but has morphed from that into a windfall for lawyers and greedy women to sue based on their own interpretation of what harrassment is—allowing the ‘victim’ to define harrassment—and has morphed again into allowing those who are actually not direct victims of any harrassment at all to sue. How crazy is that? We Americans give up our rights too easily. (Maybe Kelo vs. New London won’t wake people up.) Employees in California are going to get even more paranoid about being accused of something unfairly (particularly the men)from other employees (particularly the women)than they have been over the past 20 years. California I believe, was a member of the former Soviet Union. It sure seems that way anyways.

I listened to one home owner (radio)in New London who is fighting to keep is home. The home is waterfront property. Granted, New London is not La Jolla, but the fair market value according to him is somewhere between $300K and $400K. NLDC has offered him $60K.

We Americans had better wake up. The government, the elitists, and the powerful corporations are making the rest of us serfs. And it’s happenng so fast I’m not sure the serfs have much of a chance anymore.

I hope I’m wrong.

At the risk of being unpopular…
I’m going to disagree with you on BOTH cases you mention. But only because I’m being a devil’s advocate and thinking in broader terms:

In the case of the recent S.C. decision on eminent domain, the court may have been right if perhaps for the wrong reason: True states’ rights interpretion would argue that the Bill of Rights applies to the FEDERAL government and limits it’s powers. Even conservatives who try to limit the power of _state_ and _local_ governments using the bill of rights open up a can of worms empowering the S.C. to begin with, yes? Think about it. The place where states and localities should be limited should be at the state constitution and legislator level.

Next: sexual harassment. A lot of conservatives also buy into leftist claptrap about some regulations and feminism helping women and righting wrongs, blah blah blah. But the fact is that theoretically, “sexual harassment” legislation was more or less redundant. A boss threatening to fire a woman if she doesn’t provide him with sex, for example, probably could have been charged with extortion just as the violence against women act was also a federalized dog and pony show. By the time such legislation is introduced, the issue to be addressed is probably already being addressed both legally and socially. (That’s why the federalized legislation is so easy to pass. They don’t like solving REAL problems!)

At the risk of being unpopular…
I’m going to disagree with you on BOTH cases you mention. But only because I’m being a devil’s advocate and thinking in broader terms:

In the case of the recent S.C. decision on eminent domain, the court may have been right if perhaps for the wrong reason: True states’ rights interpretion would argue that the Bill of Rights applies to the FEDERAL government and limits it’s powers. Even conservatives who try to limit the power of _state_ and _local_ governments using the bill of rights open up a can of worms empowering the S.C. to begin with, yes? Think about it. The place where states and localities should be limited should be at the state constitution and legislator level.

Next: sexual harassment. A lot of conservatives also buy into leftist claptrap about some regulations and feminism helping women and righting wrongs, blah blah blah. But the fact is that theoretically, “sexual harassment” legislation was more or less redundant. A boss threatening to fire a woman if she doesn’t provide him with sex, for example, probably could have been charged with extortion just as the violence against women act was also a federalized dog and pony show. By the time such legislation is introduced, the issue to be addressed is probably already being addressed both legally and socially. (That’s why the federalized legislation is so easy to pass. They don’t like solving REAL problems!)

As I stated earlier, it is now up to the states to limit/define eminent domain. It is however fairly clear that the Federal Constitution provides for personal property rights even though the courts are free to define them as they see fit… as they have done in Kelo. So, you are, in essence, correct.

That said, what the Scotus did is just wrong… Damnit!

As I stated earlier, it is now up to the states to limit/define eminent domain. It is however fairly clear that the Federal Constitution provides for personal property rights even though the courts are free to define them as they see fit… as they have done in Kelo. So, you are, in essence, correct.

That said, what the Scotus did is just wrong… Damnit!