SCOTUS: Cities may seize homes at will... Kelo v. New London (merged)

Thanks Rich and Bravo25, but it isn't just me. During a round table discussion here at work about an hour ago, this came up (brought up by another officer). There were all ranks from Patrol, SRT, Narcotics, Detectives, etc. involved, and the replies were unanimous. There will be a "blue flu" epidemic the day that happens.
 
Capt Charlie wrote:

Thanks Rich and Bravo25, but it isn't just me. During a round table discussion here at work about an hour ago, this came up (brought up by another officer). There were all ranks from Patrol, SRT, Narcotics, Detectives, etc. involved, and the replies were unanimous. There will be a "blue flu" epidemic the day that happens.

----------------

Capt Charlie:

What you wrote, about "the blue flu" sounds interesting on an internet site, and I'm not trying to flame you personally, however I do wonder as to the following.

Re "the day that happens", which I take to refer to the day a court order is issued, calling for the eviction, from their home or business, of protesting property owner(s), because local government, having been bought and paid for, has opted to play Sugar Daddy to some developer, at the expense of individuals of course, I wonder as to how many of the local police would actually call in sick?
 
Alan

Fair question. I can't swear that every officer I talked to will do it, but I know my people and I'll bet a steak dinner that most will :cool: . As I've said before, we have a bunch of young, well-educated people that have strong feelings about liberty (most are military veterans). As to me posting threats of insubordination on the Internet, it's like this: I have three priorities in my life: God, Country, Job... in that order. When it comes down to put up or shut up, I freely confess that I will be very afraid. I'm single and have no family, and when I look at some homeless guy living in a cardboard box under a bridge, I think "there, but by the grace of God, go I". And at age 58, I'm too old to start over. But, ya know, principles without price are nothing but hot air, and if I have to go to my grave as a pauper, at least it will be with my dignity and self-respect intact.
 
Last edited:
Quick question . It MIGHT even be rhetorical . If land can be siezed for "public use" then everyone in New London CT can just wander all over the site . It is "public" isn't it ? Maybe camp , have club meetings and any other public function .
 
No. If the landowner cared, you'd be convicted of tresspassing. Quit trying to be so literal. Everyone knows the constitution is a living document, and phrases like "public use" need to be reinterpreted in this day and age. It's for the childruhn!

The great irony is that by treating the Constitution as a living document, we've killed it.

We ought to go back to being a confederation of states and start over constructing a new Union. This one's done.
 
Capt Charlie:

As you noted, a fair answer.

My wife asked, having read your original post, my post and your reply, the following. Is there a similar sutuation unfolding in Stubenville? If there isn't, then she said, that it would be very easy for you to say what you have said, being rather far removed from New London.

In any case, you might get off lucky, along with your fellow officers, in that the situation under discussion does not come up in Stubenville.
 
Alan

Your wife's right. Talk's cheap, and no, the same is not unfolding here... not yet. Trouble is, it can now happen anywhere, and no one's immune. Not me, not my officers, not you. As to what eventually happens here (which is nothing, I hope), I know that words posted on a forum by a person you don't know carries little weight. History will have to be my judge.
 
Capt Charlie:

Thank you and for whatever it might be worth, our best to you.

One last thing, re combatting this monstrosity crerated by the USSC, something thatr I've already done.

The congress (House and Senate) have the ability to fix the mess created by others. Do they have the will? Perhaps, perhaps not. Will they hear from the people that they supposedly serve, that too is one of those perhaps, perhaps not questions. If they don't, the mess created by the USSC will certainly not be fixed, and as was suggested by another poster, PEOPLE WILL DIE.
 
Is there a similar situation unfolding in Stubenville?
Click to expand...
alan-
Reasonable question under other circumstances. I'm not about to announce my line in the sand on an internet forum; I'm not about to publish the laws I'm willing to ignore on same. Are you? Is your wife? Does it really matter if he lives in Boston or Laramie?

I'm not criticizing you or your wife, but Capt Charlie has provided us all a reason for hope and pride. I think we should leave it at that without asking for detail or qualification.

Agreed?
Rich
 
Capt Charlie - great to hear beliefs/principles aren't compromised by your job duties.

Now, maybe you can tell me how to appeal to the LEO community in the state of WI so they will not lobby against the next concealed carry bill that comes through!!!
 
I am impressed by Capt Charlie

Sir,
Your opinions and stated beliefs, and your maintenance of polite and civil prose when responding to posts that would cause lesser men to begin typing defensive venom, are a credit to you, this forum, and your profession.
As one who is growing weary of reading threads that degenerate into meaningless and off topic personal arguements, I just want to thank you!

I hope I speak for everyone in that I also hope the police in my community feel the same way you and the seeming majority of your colleagues do!

Thank you again,
C-
 
alan said:
The congress (House and Senate) have the ability to fix the mess created by others. Do they have the will?
Click to expand...
No. If you recall, after the 9th circuit Pledge decision (Newdow), the Senate voted 99-0 (one was incommunicado) to condemn it (it was a political move, since that condemnation had no force of law).

I see no such vote regarding the Kelo decision.
 
That Hotel Lost Liberty is sure making the rounds on the internet, but the last thing we need to do is ratify that lousy decision by using it on ANYONE.

We need to amend the Constitution to redefine public use to mean public use, not some private use which may result in more tax revenue. Write your Congresscritters and ask that they do that. Here's what I faxed and then mailed to mine:
Dear Congresscritters,

I hope you are as outraged as I am about the recent Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case. I want to express my view that taking property from one citizen to benefit another private citizen is NOT a public use. This is an unacceptable decision by the Court, and I urge you to work in the Congress to amend the Constitution or do whatever is necessary to ensure that developers cannot just strongarm property owners out of their land "for the public good."

That is not a public good, it is exactly the kind of looting that we have a government established in order to PREVENT. The secure knowledge that you own your land is an essential ingredient to human prosperity, and the knowledge that your government's buddies can take it at will is a sure path to poverty and tyranny.

Thanks for your time,
Publius
Click to expand...
 
Please do. Other strong points to hit would include mentioning what IS a public use, for example, roads, military bases, utilities, other infrastructure needs, etc.

Read Justice Thomas' dissent:

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html

You might also mention the movement which has started to try to seize Justice Souter's home, and how this arbitrary view of property rights will lead to exactly that kind of political assignment of those rights. Threads on that idea are popping up all over the internet, faster than I can squash them.

Another going point to bring up would be that the opinions expressed about this case on virtually all internet forums, of all political stripes, are the same. This is a Constitutional amendment which could easily pass with 90% support or higher. NO ONE likes this ruling. Has anyone managed to find any defenders of the Kelo ruling out there?

Borrow freely. Tell your friends. Write again in a week. Be brief and respectful. Use your real name and address. All Americans will thank you, whether they know it or not.
 
with all due respect, the constitution is already quite clear on this matter and requires no amendment.

opening a constitutional convention could, at this point in history, destroy what little remains of the american republic.

this amendment proposal is based soley on emotional response to this obviously unconstitutional ruling.

use reason, not emotion.
 
use reason, not emotion.
Click to expand...
So because a constitutional convention would be unpredictable, we should sit idly by while the country degenerates into a totalitarian socialist state?
 
So because a constitutional convention would be unpredictable
Click to expand...
there is nothing unpredictable about it.

we will be granting the fox full access to the chicken house. the BoR will be amended out of any semblence of legal authority in this once great nation.

we should sit idly by while the country degenerates into a totalitarian socialist state?
Click to expand...
damned if we do, damned if we don't. borrowing from oldphart in another thread, "We have truly 'painted ourselves into a corner.' Only now we find that the corner is already owned by a skunk."

stinks, don't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top