The Supreme Court just decided an emminent domain case that has liberty-lovers everywhere flummoxed. One of the Justices who supported this absurd decision may get to experience the law firsthand.
Freestar Media
"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."
Can we let him vote again? Maybe this time he'll read the fifth amendment and come down on the side of justice.
"The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" 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."
Oh the irony. This hotel deal hasn't gone through yet, but if it does, it will be the one emminent domain case that I laud. I wish I could see Souter's face as he reads this. If he truly has no problem with the government taking our land, he shouldn't have a problem giving up his own land.
If on the other hand, he truly believes in our right to the "pursuit of happiness"--which Locke, who was a profound influence on Jefferson, categorized as property--is real and just, he's just another example of a left-wing hypocrite.
Either way, it's embarrassing to have someone like him on the bench.
4 comments:
The sad truth is that nothing like this will ever happen to Justice Souter, because eminent domain is not intended to take land from the wealthy. On the contrary, eminent domain is just one of many tools that the American bourgeoisie has pioneered in its single-minded drive for complete class domination. (The brilliant weapons contained in the Fifth Amendment have been copied by class dictatorships all over the world cf. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, s51(xxxi) of the Australian constitution, or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to name a few.) What the New London ruling makes clear is that the American bourgeoisie is just in seizing the small property holdings of ordinary citizens and right in bundling them up in the form of huge transfer payments to corporations and developers. Personally, I can’t see what objection most of the founding fathers would raise against this. The most responsible for the writing of the constitution, James Madison, stated in the “Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787” that the document should be “constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” In other words, the wealthy need some basic tools to fight back the great unwashed masses, and in this way, the new London ruling is completely in line with the type of justice that the founders intended the supreme court to provide i.e. the justice of class dictatorship, class exploitation, and class oppression.
God bless America, land that I love!
p.s. Kudos to Georg the First for nominating Souter.
Though I doubt that Madison would support this ruling, it should be noted that Jefferson in no way would have. Jefferson penned the Declaration, and though not a legal document, it is a good insight into the minds of our founding fathers.
All of this is moot for two reasons. One, the founders are not thought of too highly in most circles, especially in our Supreme Court. If a decision does reflect the views of the founders it is a convenient accident.
More importantly, your claim that "the founders intended the supreme court to provide i.e. the justice of class dictatorship, class exploitation, and class oppression" is inaccurate. Judicial review wasn't supposed to be a power granted to the Supreme Court. It was only when the court expanded it's own power--in Marbury vs. Madison--that the court began to have a great deal of authority.
It is easy to forget that, but is essential that we do not. The founders may have distrusted the common man, but they would be much more enraged at an unelected group of nine men and women handing down decisions for us all.
As for the burn on Bush, I've got nothing. He's a weak moderate, so no surprise he'd appoint an activist judge. If someone on this court ever retires, I hope this George does his old man one better.
You are an ignorant ass! The power of judicial review was certainly intended by the founders. They make this all too frighteningly clear in several of the federalist papers (which I understand that you have probably never read.) In fact, Marshall’s decision in Marbury vs. Madison (which I am quite sure you also haven’t read) is basically (and quite intentionally on Marshall’s part) plagiarized from the writings of Madison himself.
You should take some advice from Wittgenstein, “What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence.”
Thank you.
Ouch.
I feel the burn of one who doesn't have the sense of decency to post under a real name.
Now, I have certainly not read all the federalist papers, and I actually have not read the Marbury v. Madison decision. That is something I will have to change, and for that chastisement I thank you.
However, I do know that though Madison may have been in favor of judicial review, other founding fathers disagreed.
Washington and Jefferson were not at all in favor of Judicial Review. And for good reason as it has led us to having the Judicial Branch--9 unelected men and women--having the most power. Hamilton didn't expect this, and presumably did not want this either.
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
That's taken from Federalist 78. Just so you know. It's not a condemnation of judicial review directly because it wasn't something the Founder's intended as you claim.
If it was, it would have been addressed. Instead, Hamilton brushes the judicial department aside because it's not a force to be reckoned with.
Unless I'm missing something, on which case I'm sure you could infrom me.
Thank you.
Post a Comment