Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 01-31-2015, 01:48 PM   #1
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,117
Men in Black: not the movie

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.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 02:42 PM   #2
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost

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".
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 02:59 PM   #3
zico20
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
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.
zico20 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 03:03 PM   #4
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
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.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 03:06 PM   #5
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by zico20
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.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 03:08 PM   #6
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by zico20

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.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 04:05 PM   #7
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
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.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 04:10 PM   #8
johnhannibalsmith
Registered User
 
johnhannibalsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
... 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?
__________________
"You make me feel like I am fun again."

-Robert James Smith, 1989
johnhannibalsmith is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 04:17 PM   #9
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
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.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry

Last edited by Clocker; 01-31-2015 at 04:23 PM.
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 04:47 PM   #10
mostpost
Registered User
 
mostpost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North Riverside, Il.
Posts: 16,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by zico20
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.
__________________
"When you come at the King, You'd best not miss." Omar Little
mostpost is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 05:13 PM   #11
Clocker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
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.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
Clocker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 05:47 PM   #12
TJDave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
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.
__________________
All I needed in life I learned from Gary Larson.
TJDave is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 05:59 PM   #13
zico20
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
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 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 06:03 PM   #14
zico20
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJDave
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!
zico20 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-31-2015, 06:11 PM   #15
Hoofless_Wonder
broken-down horseplayer
 
Hoofless_Wonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Portland, OR area
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
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".....
__________________
Playing SRU Downs - home of the "no sweat" inquiries...
Defying the "laws" of statistics with every wager.
Hoofless_Wonder is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply





Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Which horse do you like most
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.