Rich Lucibella
Staff
Hugh-
That would pave the way for individual states to ban all firearms piecemeal.
Rich
That would pave the way for individual states to ban all firearms piecemeal.
Rich
Would You Accept a Supreme Court Ruling That there is No Individual Right Under
- Thread starter vitesse9
- Start date
They're doing just that in some coastal NJ town according to an NPR report I heard the other day. They're taking people's homes (including the home of one 70yo lady interviewed) to make room for expensive homes and townhomes with a fancy boardwalk and all the fixin's. The mayor, also interviewed, claims the plan is what got him reelected.
Chris
Several years ago, I read of these kinds of shenanigans going on in NJ, on behalf of Donald Trump, who couldn't convince some people on his own to move out and sell to him so he could build something or other.
This was several years before Kelo.
I hope I am not the only person here who is getting the sense that no matter what, The Rabbi is going to be an apologist for these tyrannical tactics.
-blackmind
This was several years before Kelo.
I hope I am not the only person here who is getting the sense that no matter what, The Rabbi is going to be an apologist for these tyrannical tactics.
-blackmind
Sorry, I can't be everywhere to personally confirm each report I hear.
FWIW, the report was pretty balanced. It presented both sides of the story with significant amounts of airtime to both parties. The point of the report was that the area was blighted and the local govt believed it could increase the value of the land while increasing beachside tourism. The other side (little old lady and others) preferred not to lose their homes to the benefit of people with more money.
Chris
Something that hasn't been expressed in this thread, or, if it has, I missed it: If a case testing whether the 2nd provides for individual, rather than collective protection is taken to the Supreme Court, the position of the current administration's Justice Dept. on that matter would be crucial. Want to keep your guns? Keep the Blue State Pansies out of the White House!
All I'm saying is that you tend to take the side of devil's advocate for Statists. I have seen it repeatedly, and it appears strongly in this thread.
I don't think anyone should be making light of the abusive government policies and application of "eminent domain" because people's lives are being ruined by this. But here you come along, and evidently don't think it's a big deal because it's only affecting a small number of people.
That number is growing, in large part due to apathy just like yours.
-blackmind
Oh, people's lives are being ruined by some government action. Stop the presses.
Well, excuse me for pointing out that eminent domain has been a right of gov't since the Magna Carta. Pardon me for injecting some note of truth that the state has had the right to seize property for some time. I beg your indulgence while I point out that Kelo was a very specific type of taking, one that many municipalities already have laws against and many more should enact, rather than yammering about impeaching SC judges, which makes people on these boards look like idiots.
Maybe you'd like to start a campaign to outlaw all eminent domain actions. Go for it, bubba. We're all right behind you.
Well, excuse me for pointing out that eminent domain has been a right of gov't since the Magna Carta. Pardon me for injecting some note of truth that the state has had the right to seize property for some time. I beg your indulgence while I point out that Kelo was a very specific type of taking, one that many municipalities already have laws against and many more should enact, rather than yammering about impeaching SC judges, which makes people on these boards look like idiots.
Maybe you'd like to start a campaign to outlaw all eminent domain actions. Go for it, bubba. We're all right behind you.
The Repeated References to New London
are inapposite. When you speak of eminent domain takings, you're mostly speaking of STATES taking private property. Therefore, a rush to enact better state laws would largely solve the problem.
However, because of the supremacy clause, state law will be usless if we start seeing draconian federal gun laws a la 1990s. Federal law trumps state law, and the only thing preventing Congress from enacting harsh federal laws is the Second Amendment.
are inapposite. When you speak of eminent domain takings, you're mostly speaking of STATES taking private property. Therefore, a rush to enact better state laws would largely solve the problem.
However, because of the supremacy clause, state law will be usless if we start seeing draconian federal gun laws a la 1990s. Federal law trumps state law, and the only thing preventing Congress from enacting harsh federal laws is the Second Amendment.
Last edited:
I am not sure who "us" is. If you mean people who spout off about Kelo without understanding what it is about then I'd have to agree.
But I will point out that the government has been taking property under eminent domain (including from my own family in Miami btw) probably since the Constitution was adopted. It is a recognized power of government.
My opposition to Kelo is that it involves a new standard of taking that broadly defines common good well beyond any intention. It ultimately destroys value in community because no one will want to build anything knowing the gov't can come and take it when a better offer comes along.
It does more than that. It redefines the common good to mean takings by another private entity that will allow the government to generate an increase in its tax base.The Rabbi said:
Before Kelo it could, and in some places has, been argued that private to private transfers, coerced by the government or an NGO (like in Kelo) were unlawful. Not now, in lieu of the state governments passing laws to prohibit such takings, they are the Law.
Rabbi
No, I'm not joking. Federal law always trumps state law when they conflict. But, if you don't want to take my word for it:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
U.S. Const. Art. VI.
In other words, gun rights guaranteed by the states to their respective citizens do not protect those citizens from federal anti-gun laws.
What's to joke about?
No, I'm not joking. Federal law always trumps state law when they conflict. But, if you don't want to take my word for it:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
U.S. Const. Art. VI.
In other words, gun rights guaranteed by the states to their respective citizens do not protect those citizens from federal anti-gun laws.
What's to joke about?
Last edited:
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Rabbi is correct, if the Constitution or Bill of Rights had been read and understood by an unbiased person, they would conclude that 99.9999% of current gun laws are absolute garbage. Both encourage Americans to own guns, IMHO, because the Founding Fathers knew that filthy jackboots could ignore or spin their words.
Mark my words, the next argument from antigun liberals will be that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are outdated documents that have no bearing on todays society... And then is when the S H T Fan.
The last check and balance is the gun.
Mark my words, the next argument from antigun liberals will be that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are outdated documents that have no bearing on todays society... And then is when the S H T Fan.
The last check and balance is the gun.
What do you mean the "next argument?" That's the current argument, couched as the Constitution being a "living and breathing document." By doing so, they can eliminate our freedoms by molding it into their perverted idea of what a society should be, a society our forebearers did not want.