House Votes for Eminent-Domain Changes

Any idea if this new bill will help cut out speculators as well? Like the guy who was perfectly willing to resell the land he'd just bought at like $300k a acre? Guys like that would either make a killing or derail a project if no one wants to pay grossly inflated prices.

The bill appears clear cut though lawyers would still have fun with it. The Archies are still heroes in my eyes. I didn't care if their plot stood smack dab in the middle of the assembly line. It was their property!

Seems I remember my public educated civics lessons <which the government has deemed unimportant to teach lately lest the mob know their rights> and property rights were central to the republic.

Won't comment to the Republican angle as the first week in the house is all about postering. Trying to ram multiple spending bills in one day is irresponsible when they have never been read.

Good for the House for passing this. I don't know why Republicans would oppose it (though Mike Lott seems to end up on the wrong side of pretty much everything); in Kelo v. New London, it was the conservative justices who stood up for property rights.


Cheers,

TH

The Archies are still heroes in my eyes. I didn't care if their plot stood smack dab in the middle of the assembly line. It was their property!

I agree, Doc. We had just moved back, and that story was my first hint that the local media sucked. The Clarion-Ledger had all their Nissan coverage under a Nissan logo — a logo!!! — and barely questioned this whole thing. I remember the business editor there writing the dumbest column talking about how land had been in his family a long time, but he supported the taking anyway. It was disgusting, and helped motivate us to start this paper.

Here's a column I wrote back then for the Progressive Populist:

http://www.populist.com/01.16.ladd.html

You know, when certain professing conservatives stand for big government, deficit spending, imperial nation-building, Orwellian control over individual lives, and forced collective ownership of property, should they really call themselves conservatives anymore?


Cheers,

TH

I am surprised Republicans voted against it. Is there any reason why? The only reason I can think of is the bill was not strong enough in their taste unless Barbour told them to vote against it.

I completely oppose the Kelo decision and any law we pass putting limits on eminent domain seizures is a good thing in my opinion.

I assume, 'Fish, because Barbour and corporations want eminent-domain. Have you not noticed that the predominant GOP voices right now aren't actually "conservative"!?!

I have stated that quite a few times in these forums.

One thing about Molly Ivins, with whom I usually disagree. She said when Bush was first elected Conservatives would wind up disliking him. She was right.

On this issue, IF that is the case, it puts Barbour and company at odds with conservatives. Most if not all leading conservatives and publications such as NR, WSJ Op-Ed Page, Buckley, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, etc strongly oppose the Kelo decision. Sowell thought it was a terrible decision (he wants to ban corporate subsidies by the way).

Would the word "fascism" be an exaggeration, I wonder? I mean, many of these folks don't even support gun rights on any consistent basis--witness the widespread support for Giuliani and Melton from folks who also support eminent domain, puritanical conduct laws, big government, imperial nation-building, deficit spending, restrictions on criticism of the government, surveillance of any American at executive discretion... I'm serious. Where is the conservatism here? What is being conserved? And what is this, if it isn't fascism? Is there another name for it? "Authoritarianism" could work, I guess, but that's too much of a $20 word.


Cheers,

TH

By the way, I would expect most purportedly conservative op-ed columnists to turn on a dime and support eminent domain if that becomes a feature of the aggressive right wing. Buckley and Will might dissent, but I would expect Limbaugh and Sowell to fall into line and change their views based on wherever the political winds of their movement seem to be heading.


Cheers,

TH

Spoonerism--I meant to say that Buckley and Sowell might dissent, but Limbaugh and Will would probably fall into line. In retrospect, I think Will would probably dissent, too, but there are still plenty of Ann Coulters, Michelle Malkins, Jonah Goldbergs, and so forth willing to be partisan hacks, so I expect the overall sentiment would still be very much pro-eminent domain.


Cheers,

TH

It is interesting that the Miss. Republicans would oppose a fundamental flaw in the use (or abuse) of eminent domain, when even the White House came out with an opinion against it earlier this year (ironic given the fact that the era of Republicans being the party of small government has been killed and buried by the Bush administration): http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html
This was in response to the Kelo case that Head mentioned earlier. After that case, the classic right-wing "limited government" conservatives were outraged (and rightfully so) at the growing abuse of eminent domain on behalf of private industry, while you actually had a few liberal politician supporting the notion as a way of revitalizing blighted areas and stimulating the tax base.

Good point, ejeff. And the support for eminent domain from Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter ticked me off something mightily--as I said in a blog entry at the time, it makes one wonder if we were looking for our dreaded "corporate court" in the wrong place. There is absolutely no constitutional basis for the Kelo ruling; it is an innovation that conflates public and private ownership. If that went in the other direction, the Third Amendment would ban all military bases on U.S. soil!


Cheers,

TH

Tom:

As I read the conservative mags quite a bit, I can assure you that most of them oppose Kelo and are pretty consistent in their logic and views on it.