Men in Black: not the movie

[mostpost]

Over in the thread titled, "The Great Mark Levin renews through 2020" I was taken to task for daring to comment on a book I had not read. I said that I would read it and that I expected to find even more to criticize once I had finished. I have not finished the book, but I am ready to begin.

In the forward to the paperback addition, Levin talks about a "Judicial Land Grab." A case in which the city of New London, Ct. seeks to acquire land through the power of eminent domain. According to Levin's questionable summation, "the city wanted to take their home (claiming the neighborhood was blighted) and transfer them to private developers purportedly to improve the area and generate more tax revenue."

Most residents of the area accepted the government offer, but a few fought to stay in their homes. The subsequent case was Kelo vs. the City of New London. Plaintiffs argued that the confiscation violated the "Takings Clause" of the fifth amendment. The takings clause provides that private property may not be "Taken for public use, without just compensation.

Levin agreed with this view and accused the Court of reinterpreting the "Takings Clause" and participating in a "Judicial land grab. He is wrong. Wrong in his accusation and wrong in his interpretation of the "Takings Clause" Public use is not limited to things such as roads or bridges or public buildings. This has been decided in many cases prior to Kelo vs. the City of New London. Cases such as; Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26.

The above cases-one from 1984, one from 1954-along with several others, clearly establish the principle that economic development qualifies as public use. A restaurant may be a private entity, but without participation by the public, it does not exist. The public benefits from the establishment of the new economic district and therefore, the City has the right to use eminent domain.

We need to go back a bit here. When the City of New London was considering what to do with the Fort Trumball area, it established the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). The NLDC was a non profit corporation charged with the development of the area in question.

Once the NLDC had come up with an acceptable plan, the city approved it and the state legislature provided some funding. Other funding came from other sources.

The point is the economic development plan was developed with public input, it was approved by the elected leaders of the city of New London and funding was provided-in part-pursuant to actions by the elected legislature of the State of Connecticut. There was no judicial from the bench; no judicial land grab.

In fact, one of the actions which plaintiffs wanted the court to take was to over rule the actions of the legislature. In his majority opinion, Justice Stevens rejected that option saying in summary that the judicial branch should always-absent constitutional issues-defer to the legislative branch.

[Clocker]

Levin agreed with this view and accused the Court of reinterpreting the "Takings Clause" and participating in a "Judicial land grab. He is wrong. Wrong in his accusation and wrong in his interpretation of the "Takings Clause" Public use is not limited to things such as roads or bridges or public buildings.

The fact that the court ruled the other way does not mean that Levin is wrong. SCOTUS is not infallible, and often rules contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. This case and the others cited above are obvious examples of the court legislating from the bench, based on desired outcome rather than constitutionality. Which is to say, the court was wrong, not Levin.

The Hawaii Housing decision is a particularly loathsome example of a decision based on redistribution of wealth in order to obtain a result that the government thought was "fair". In short, the court did not like the free market outcome, and decided that the government knew better. They confiscated property solely because ownership was concentrated in too few hands, and that wasn't "fair". There is nothing in the Constitution about "fair".

[zico20]

The fact that the court ruled the other way does not mean that Levin is wrong. SCOTUS is not infallible, and often rules contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. This case and the others cited above are obvious examples of the court legislating from the bench, based on desired outcome rather than constitutionality. Which is to say, the court was wrong, not Levin.

The Hawaii Housing decision is a particularly loathsome example of a decision based on redistribution of wealth in order to obtain a result that the government thought was "fair". In short, the court did not like the free market outcome, and decided that the government knew better. They confiscated property solely because ownership was concentrated in too few hands, and that wasn't "fair". There is nothing in the Constitution about "fair".

Clocker,

I happen to agree with you completely, however, to liberals, EVERYTHING is in the constitution one way or the other. Look no further than abortion. The court essentially ruled that liberty=privacy=abortion. Nowhere in the constitution does it talk about privacy. But yet 7 liberal supreme court justices some how determined that privacy is a constitutional right.

Believe me, "fair" can be determined a constitutional right if we ever get an overwhelmingly liberal number of justices to sit on the supreme court again. Liberals make up whatever they want if they need to. The Roe vs Wade decision just confirms this. We are lucky the supreme court has been basically conservative for a long time now.

[boxcar]

And Mr. Mostie, if the writers of that Amendment meant by "public use" any use deemed appropriate by the state, then I think they would have written that language plainly into the amendment. All of sudden "public use" is extrapolated to mean any use the government deems to be appropriate. Yet, the entire Constitution is written to put a bridle on the government -- to keep tight reins on government power in order to protect the citizens from tyranny.

[boxcar]

Clocker,

I happen to agree with you completely, however, to liberals, EVERYTHING is in the constitution one way or the other. Look no further than abortion. The court essentially ruled that liberty=privacy=abortion. Nowhere in the constitution does it talk about privacy. But yet 7 liberal supreme court justices some how determined that privacy is a constitutional right.

Believe me, "fair" can be determined a constitutional right if we ever get an overwhelmingly liberal number of justices to sit on the supreme court again. Liberals make up whatever they want if they need to. The Roe vs Wade decision just confirms this. We are lucky the supreme court has been basically conservative for a long time now.

And just watch what will happen when there is a majority shift in ideology. Communism will rush in like a flood! We will witness judicial tyranny like never before.

[Clocker]

Believe me, "fair" can be determined a constitutional right if we ever get an overwhelmingly liberal number of justices to sit on the supreme court again.

Obama is the poster boy for "fair" outcomes under the law. Even before running for national office, he famously whined that the problem with the Constitution was that it was a document of negative rights. It says what the government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the government has to do for you.

This issue of taking of property is one more instance of using the laws and the courts to "fix" the "unfair" results of the free market. Equality under the law to some means equal outcomes.

[mostpost]

The fact that the court ruled the other way does not mean that Levin is wrong. SCOTUS is not infallible, and often rules contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. This case and the others cited above are obvious examples of the court legislating from the bench, based on desired outcome rather than constitutionality. Which is to say, the court was wrong, not Levin.

The Hawaii Housing decision is a particularly loathsome example of a decision based on redistribution of wealth in order to obtain a result that the government thought was "fair". In short, the court did not like the free market outcome, and decided that the government knew better. They confiscated property solely because ownership was concentrated in too few hands, and that wasn't "fair". There is nothing in the Constitution about "fair".
Correct. SCOTUS does get it wrong sometimes. Citizens United is one example. Original intent is a flawed concept. How could the framers have had any intent about economic development zones, when such a concept did not even exist at the time.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Original intent is a flawed concept. ...

Which is the correct concept to use in such cases? If not attempting to interpret as best possible the default position of the framers in similar events using precedent, thus the intent, what then?

[Clocker]

How could the framers have had any intent about economic development zones, when such a concept did not even exist at the time.

The concept of private property did exist at the time, and the framers made it a cornerstone of our system. If society determines some other concept now trumps that principle, the solution is simple. The Constitution provides for amendment.

"Economic development zone" is elitist code for the concept that some people just don't know what is good for them, and we're from the government to help you with that. Another example of the failed principle that the government can make better decisions than the free market and that the government can micromanage the economy better than the private sector.

[mostpost]

Clocker,

I happen to agree with you completely, however, to liberals, EVERYTHING is in the constitution one way or the other. Look no further than abortion. The court essentially ruled that liberty=privacy=abortion. Nowhere in the constitution does it talk about privacy. But yet 7 liberal supreme court justices some how determined that privacy is a constitutional right.
First amendment: the right to practice the religion of your choice is a privacy right, as are the right to free speech and the right to assemble peaceably.
Fourth Amendment: The right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a privacy right.
Fifth Amendment: the right to not testify against oneself is a privacy right.
Ninth Amendment verbatim: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, even though the Constitution does not specifically grant a right to privacy, that right does exist and nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted so as to deny that right.
One of the bases of the decision in Roe v Wade was privacy and you feel the decision was wrong because there is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution. Therefore, you must feel that there is no problem with the government tapping your phone or reading your emails. After all, there is no right to privacy.

[Clocker]

In other words, even though the Constitution does not specifically grant a right to privacy, that right does exist and nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted so as to deny that right.

There is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. The original intent of the founders was that there are natural human rights to life, liberty and property. The government cannot infringe on your privacy if it involves a infringement on those basic rights, especially as more fully enumerated in the Bills of Rights.

The huge leap in twisted logic is to extend that expectation of privacy to cover abortion. The connection between the two defies common sense.

[TJDave]

The huge leap in twisted logic is to extend that expectation of privacy to cover abortion. The connection between the two defies common sense.

A woman's body is her private possession to do with as she pleases.

[zico20]

First amendment: the right to practice the religion of your choice is a privacy right, as are the right to free speech and the right to assemble peaceably.
Fourth Amendment: The right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a privacy right.
Fifth Amendment: the right to not testify against oneself is a privacy right.
Ninth Amendment verbatim: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, even though the Constitution does not specifically grant a right to privacy, that right does exist and nothing in the Constitution should be interpreted so as to deny that right.
One of the bases of the decision in Roe v Wade was privacy and you feel the decision was wrong because there is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution. Therefore, you must feel that there is no problem with the government tapping your phone or reading your emails. After all, there is no right to privacy.

If the founding fathers thought a right to privacy was so important, they would have included it specifically in the first amendment, or at least in the Bill of Rights.

Now, lets go through your reasons. People go to a place of worship, so privacy is not implied. This falls under the separation of church and state. Free speech and assembly are considered public affairs. No privacy issues whatsoever.

The 4th amendment deals with UNreasonable search and seizure. Had it said reasonable search and seizure then you would be on to something, but it does not.

The 5th amendment is a public courtroom. No privacy issues there. The right to privacy deals with what you do in your own home. The government can't interfere in your private life as it pertains to your land, nothing more.

Abortion has nothing to do with privacy. I will grant you that the framers did want individuals to have a right to privacy, but only as it pertained to their ownership of land.

Last thing, funny as how you didn't mention the 2nd amendment. I suppose you hate that one. If not, you would have brought that up first. After all, an individuals right to keep a firearm IS a privacy right. The 2nd amendment would have been your biggest asset, but you chose to ignore it. Very strange.

Finally, I don't have a problem with the government tapping my phone or emails if they have a reasonable belief that something illegal is going on. They also have to get a search warrant. I am sure many terrorist plots have been foiled by listening in on Muslims phone calls.

I assume you would prefer that a terrorist blow up a school building killing a bunch of children instead of the government listening in on their calls and stopping it ahead of time. Most liberals hate the wiretapping under ALL circumstances.

[zico20]

A woman's body is her private possession to do with as she pleases.

So if she is pregnant she can drink as much alcohol as she likes for the entire pregnancy. You don't have a problem with that. Amazing!

[Hoofless_Wonder]

And just watch what will happen when there is a majority shift in ideology. Communism will rush in like a flood! We will witness judicial tyranny like never before.

I think that boat already sailed when ObamaCare was ruled a tax, and not a mandate.

Good thing it's so "affordable"..... :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

A woman's body is her private possession to do with as she pleases.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Please explain to me the logic that says that a doctor and a woman cooperating to kill a fetus at any stage of development is a privacy issue, but a person that causes the death of a fetus during the commission of a crime is guilty of homicide.

From Wiki:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

That is federal law. Most states have the same laws.

I am not totally opposed to abortion, but I have extreme reservations about it. And the conflict in logic that says that something is or isn't a crime depending on who does it is a large part of my problem.

[Tom]

That is the fantasy of the left.
Allows them to make great leaps to whatever they need to believe for their own convenience.

[boxcar]

A woman's body is her private possession to do with as she pleases.

And so according to that definition, everyone else's body is their own PERSONAL, PRIVATE POSSESSION to with with as they please, e.g. pour drink into it, smoke into it, eat fatty foods, and that body has a right to spend his money on everything but health insurance if he so pleases. But funny how all that changed under ObamaCare. Now the government has taken over control of our bodies, i.e. bodily health! So much for "private possession", eh?

[Tom]

They can't sell it for sex.
How can the libs allow that?

[Clocker]

But funny how all that changed under ObamaCare. Now the government has taken over control of our bodies, i.e. bodily health! So much for "private possession", eh?

No, it changed long before that as various governments started regulating where you could smoke, what you could eat, or how big a soft drink you could buy. And what your child could or couldn't eat at school.

[TJDave]

Please explain to me the logic that says that a doctor and a woman cooperating to kill a fetus at any stage of development is a privacy issue, but a person that causes the death of a fetus during the commission of a crime is guilty of homicide.

In the first example the woman gives permission for a legal procedure.

In the second, it isn't.

[boxcar]

In the first example the woman gives permission for a legal procedure.

In the second, it isn't.

Nonsense! In the first example, the woman is no better than the cold-blooded murderer in the second.

Also, who in the first example downgraded the human fetus to something less than a human being? You see, you are leaving the human fetus out of your little equation.

[Clocker]

In the first example the woman gives permission for a legal procedure.

In the second, it isn't.

You just answered with a tautology. It's legal because it's legal. Both actions have the same result. Why is it legal for one but a horrible crime for another? More importantly, why is one moral and the other isn't?

How about a pregnant woman who drives drunk, wrecks her car, and kills her baby? Is that a privacy issue, or is it negligent homicide?

[Tom]

Because in the liberal fantasy world, it makes an excuse for them.
It frees them from responsibility, something no lib has.

[TJDave]

Why is it legal for one but a horrible crime for another? More importantly, why is one moral and the other isn't?

Two questions, same answer:

Because abortion is legal.

[zico20]

Two questions, same answer:

Because abortion is legal.

So you believe that at one time slavery was morally okay. Go into the ghetto and spouse that view and see how far it gets you. Just because something is legal does not make it morally alright.

[TJDave]

So you believe that at one time slavery was morally okay.

Sure. Read the bible. ;)

[Tom]

So you believe that at one time slavery was morally okay. Go into the ghetto and spouse that view and see how far it gets you. Just because something is legal does not make it morally alright.

Of course not.
And the ban on doing business with Jews in Germany in 1935 was the law so it was all good.

It all part of the liberal fantasy world.
Nothing is bad unless you want it to be bad.
There are no consequences to anything and you are always right.

The lalalalibs have it figure out.
2RLebG9gpb0

[TJDave]

Of course not.

Then why did the bible permit it?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

They can't sell it for sex.
How can the libs allow that?

As the government grows ever larger and runs low on cash, I'd be stunned if prostitution isn't legalized, taxed as new "revenue" stream, and promoted as a viable career option for young women.

Doubt the conservatives will be supporting that - at least in public....

I'm still waiting for Mostie to actually make a point. His attempt to discredit Levin seems woefully inadequate so far.....