[identity profile] kelincihutan.livejournal.com
In reading the news articles lately, I would almost say that a good portion of the left side of the nation is shocked--shocked, they tell us--that the Supreme Court has any kind of power at all. Most of us are content to await the Supreme Court to finish doing precisely the job they Constitutionally exist for, but apparently the idea that the High Court exists to determine the constitutionality of one statute or another--as opposed to creating new ones out of whole cloth when somebody couldn't get something through Congress--comes as news to some people.

First there's Obama himself, who claimed that "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," and that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example [of judicial activism] and I'm pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step." (Ums, ers, pauses, and filler words removed.) As if a seven-vote passage in the House is a "strong majority" or something. And since is grasp of recent history is so shaky, I suppose it's unsurprising that his comprehension of the Constitution--which must, on such a scale, be considered as old as dirt--and the history of the Supreme Court, is even worse. Apparently someone got with him later, as he did try to walk back from some of the more outrageous bits.

Then there's this article from The Atlantic urging Obama to run "against the Supreme Court." The article makes cases against two potential objections to this, neither of which--interestingly--are "What could he possibly accomplish by running against the only branch that doesn't get elected whist trying to be elected to the only branch that is uninvolved in amending the Constitution?" While I agree with the author in their conclusion that the Supreme Court is not above criticism or politics, they seem to think that Obama has any kind of ability to do anything to them.

But that's not all. The Atlantic also reminds us "You're confusing the poor Europeans!" The Daily Beast wants us to know that "Obama didn't really say anything that remarkable." Not to mention Media Matters helpfully pointing out to everyone, "There's no precedent for striking down legislation under the commerce clause for the last seventy-five years, and that's ages ago so it doesn't count!" And this is just the tip of the enormous hysterical iceberg. There's lots more.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone has read the Constitution at all.

cross-posted to right-angles on DW
[identity profile] scarletumbrella.livejournal.com
Got sent this this morning. I've only skimmed it so far, but what I read took me aback. I definitely think it's worth a look: Answering Peggy Noonan: Why Sotomayor Should Withdraw

Could also be subtitled, "Modern Racism."
[identity profile] phoenix-starr.livejournal.com

Chief Justice Roberts Suffers Seizure, Fall

No Cause For Concern, Spokeswoman Says

POSTED: 3:29 pm EDT July 30, 2007
UPDATED: 7:14 pm EDT July 30, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure at his summer home in Maine on Monday, causing a fall that resulted in minor scrapes, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

He will remain in a hospital in Maine overnight.

Roberts, 52, was taken by ambulance to the Penobscot Bay Medical Center, where he underwent a "thorough neurological evaluation, which revealed no cause for concern," Arberg said in a statement.

More at the above link

Dang, but I hope he really is ok.  Pray everyone!
[identity profile] phoenix-starr.livejournal.com
LOGAN VISITS NEW HAMPSHIRE THIS WEEKEND

Logan will visit Weare, New Hampshire from August 20th to the 23rd. He will talk to local supporters who are planning to use ballot initiatives to seize the land at 34 Cilley Hill Road and clear away other local laws that may hinder the project. It appears that an initiative can be placed on the March 2006 Weare N.H. ballot with only 25 signatures and can win with between 1,020 and 2,777 votes. Whoever said this project "will never happen" might find themself sitting in the Just Deserts Cafe eating crow pie next to David Souter.

Freestar Media will hold an open meeting to discuss the Lost Liberty Hotel project on Monday August 22nd at the Radisson Hotel at 700 Elm Street, Manchester NH 03101. Mention "The Lost Liberty Hotel project" for $1 parking. The meeting will go from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm in salon D. Logan will discuss the purpose of the project and why it is an important step in the struggle against statism. Free copies of Ayn Rand's revolutionary capitalist manifesto ATLAS SHRUGGED will be provided to the first 25 people who attend.

Project/Donation Update

When the Supreme Court ruled in "Kelo vs. City of New London" that a city can take your home and give it to private developer, I was outraged.

In response, I proposed building the Lost Liberty Hotel on land owned by one of the Justices who voted in favor of this decision.

You can support this project by sending a check to "Freestar Media, LLC". (We are a for-profit media company not a charity so you can't deduct this on your taxes.) Please put "support/ advertising" in the subject line and send it to..

FREESTAR MEDIA, LLC L.L. HOTEL PROJECT 7657 Winnetka Ave#707 Canoga Park, CA 91306

So far donations have opened an office, put two people on the project full time and are allowing us to hire a third. The project has brought the issue of eminent domain abuse to the national media as Logan has appeared on FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, CourtTV and in countless newspaper articles and radio interviews.

To support us by credit card...

..click this link

S. 1313

Jun. 30th, 2005 11:39 pm
[identity profile] phoenix-starr.livejournal.com
"It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said. "This legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only 'for public use,' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development."

The legislation would clarify government's exercise of its power of eminent domain to be limited only for public use. "Public use" would NOT be construed to include economic development. This standard of protection would apply to (1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the federal government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by state and local government through the use of federal funds.


::says a prayer for it to pass:: It's not perfect by any means, but it makes me hopeful.

Send your Senator a Message to vote for S. 1313
[identity profile] phoenix-starr.livejournal.com
Below is a quote from the request for the seizure of Souter's house.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

Would you like to send an e-mail to the five members of the town of Weare's Board of Selectmen where the request for this hotel is? Click to go here! Then click the Take Action Now button. You will then be sent to a form (with a form letter, but you can remove that and write what you want) where you will be able to email all five Selectmen for the Board of the City of Weare.
[identity profile] phoenix-starr.livejournal.com
Take back your property! Tell your House Rep how you feel by clicking Here! (A good link to save for future rants as well.) Click Here to contact your Senators.

Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- Although the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments ruling dominated Monday's headlines, a property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen -- if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base.

The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.


Article can be found Here on the net.

Profile

therightfangirl: (Default)
The Right Fangirl

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
789 10 111213
14 15 1617181920
2122 2324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 06:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios