SECOND SUPREME FACES EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION
David S:
SECOND SUPREME FACES EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION
Jul 26, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
by staff reports
The Supreme Court’s controversial decision regarding “eminent domain” has resulted in the potential confiscation of another Justice's property - Justice Steven Breyer.
First it was Justice David A. Souter’s who was faced with removal of property in the wake of the Supreme Court’s surprising decision that eminent domain can be used to confiscate people’s homes in order to raise more tax revenue (among other reasons) on grounds of “eminent domain.” Now a group of New Hampshire citizens plans a Constitution Park on 167 acres in Plainfield, NH owned by Justice Breyer. The Supremes in favor of the controversial expansion of eminent domain are Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter – and this means that at least two of the five had their property publicly targeted.
In an e-mail to Free-Market News Network (FMNN), one of the groups organizers, Mike Lorrey announced he will appear on New Hampshire Public Radio's "The Exchange" tomorrow at 10 am (EST) (July 27, ’05), to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent eminent domain opposite two attorneys representing the developers and the municipal association, respectively. FMNN has previously reported on plans to confiscate property from Justice Souter – first announced in a press release from Freestar Media LLC which proposed to build a hotel in Weare, New Hampshire on the land currently occupied by an old farmhouse owned by Souter. Freestar Media claimed it planned to build the hotel with a café in partnership with the local government because a hotel would generate more tax revenue than a home.
Reached by phone, Lorrey confirmed tomorrow's radio program and added that a successful petition drive had already taken place in Weare to place the confiscation of Justice Souter's property on the ballot early in 2006. Lorrey confirmed that "heavy pressure" had already been placed on Weare's town government to block the Souter "taking" - necessitating the petition effort. "It wasn't hard to gather signatures," he said. Lorrey predicted the petition would pass next year and that Souter would have to go to court to try to stop it. "Breyer will face the same scenario," he said. He also pointed out that the ultimate result of the eminent domain attacks on the two Justices would probably be to generate some sort of political action within the New Hampshire legislature to minimize potential takings within the state.
It is perhaps not surprising that New Hampshire is hosting eminent domain challenges given its reputation as a fairly libertarian region and the ongoing success of the “free state” movement which has seen up to 5,000 or more individuals and families settle there in order to build a critical mass of voters who could proceed to roll back some of the more onerous laws, regulations and taxes that states passed in the last 100 years. Lorrey is active in the Libertarian party and New Hampshire's Free State project. He is also a computer programmer.
Everett:
As far as I am concerned, they aren't above or immune to the actions they make. Therefore, if their decisions backfire in the long run, I wouldn't shed a tear for them.
Speed of Sound:
Quote from: Everett on July 26, 2005, 05:37:50 PM
As far as I am concerned, they aren't above or immune to the actions they make. Therefore, if their decisions backfire in the long run, I wouldn't shed a tear for them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Emsworth:
He doesn't think that something is right just because he finds something constitutional. If, before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, a Justice declared that slavery was constitutional, should he consequently have been enslaved?
Everett:
Quote from: Emsworth on July 26, 2005, 05:47:27 PM
He doesn't think that something is right just because he finds something constitutional. If, before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, a Justice declared that slavery was constitutional, should he consequently have been enslaved?
If a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling that affects the country as a whole (everyone), he might also eventually become affected by said ruling, whether for good or bad. I would not demand that the justices who ruled in favour of this (in my opinion) unwise decision have their private property seized, but should such an event occur, I would not personally find anything wrong with it; they made the ruling, now they need to accept and abide by it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page