Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the

Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

(no subject)

Jun. 23rd, 2005 01:55 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Now, I'm not a fan of private property... but this is a question of 2 private battles.
"WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.

In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales."
I remember posting about this case earlier. Now, I hate private property, but I REALLY hate commercial private property. Again, I'm sure that this is a case where I'll end up agreeing with the (real) conservatives.


The march towards the incestuous relationship between capital and state continues ever on. Excelsior!

(no subject)

Jun. 7th, 2005 01:39 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Recently, I believe I posted about the ruling of the Supreme Court as regards medical marijuana that occurred on 6/6/05.

I certainly think from a purely constitutional perspective that the ruling was completely wrong. I agree with the conservatives on this one (they were actually being traditional conservatives)... In fact, I appreciate O'Connor's emphasis on the concept of experimentation. I've thought this for some time. States should be allowed to have very different dynamics internally. But now we have an overarching federal scheme that essentially makes states very, very similar.

Now, my point in this post is to "reverse-engineer" the issue... The conservative case is that Congress has no authority to regulate intrastate medical marijuana, due to the fact that there is no interstate commerce involved. And especially in this case, where the patient(s?) was/were growing it their selves, without going through any distribution channel... There is fucking no commerce involved at all.

So, I thought about what it would mean if the court HAD voted the conservative way, and that Congress has no right to ban intrastate growing and consumption of marijuana. They don't say, of course, that the States don't have the right. The individual states could still ban it in whatever way they see fit (so long as they don't infringe upon constitutional rights)... Now, though, if this were the ruling, the federal court would in effect say that with regards to federal law, there is no legal way for them to prevent you from growing marijuana yourself and using it. Wrap that around your head... If the strict constitutionalists would have been the majority, you would have every right as a citizen of the United States, to grow your own weed. That doesn't mean you necessarily have that right at the state level, but there wouldn't be a damn thing the government could do to stop you if your State DID allow you to grow it and smoke it.

This is just one example of the reason I'm for a limited federalism. By this I mean a confederation of states, with limited national unity, to serve for common purposes, but not much else. I don't like the way it's called the "Federal Government", because to me, it's more of a "national government". In theory it's a federation of loosely regulated states, but in actuality, it's not the case.

bah. anyways.
Via [ profile] bradhicks:

The ruling pins the whole justification for their decision on a 1942 Supreme Court decision in a food rationing case, Wickard v Filburn. I'd never heard of it. But when I understood the reasoning in Wickard v Filburn, I broke out in maniacal laughter. In Wickard, the Court was asked to rule on whether or not some farmer was violating the food rationing laws by keeping food that he grew for himself. The court ruled that every purchase in a market has effects on the whole national and global market, so if a product is sold in more than one state, every use or purchase has interstate effects. How? By reducing demand. If he grows and eats his own wheat, he's reducing the demand for wheat. Do you see the funny here? Justice Stevens (for the majority) is saying that Congress has federal authority to stop her because by growing her own marijuana, Angel McClary Raich is depressing the nation-wide market for marijuana. And Lord Knows, We Wouldn't Want That Now, Would We?

Full Article
For once I agree with the conservatives...
"Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented."

This regards a case brought by two sick women who sued for their right to not have interference from the Feds in their medical marijuana useage. Those 3 conservatives were the only ones who said the Feds had no right. The rest (most of them liberal, mind you) voted FOR the big gov't crackdown.

Even though it's fucking argued that there was no interstate commerce because the weed was grown in their own home. Thus, by all rights, it is NOT a federal issue.


I fucking hate America.
"In a pair of consolidated cases announced on Jan. 12, U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan, it (the US Supreme Court) held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional." So, what the fuck is congress gonna do? I know there's gonna be a big fucking push to amend. Or am I off-base in this assumption?

I hope this means that judges can finally decided a proper punishment based upon the merit of the case, instead of having politics play this bullshit vengeful role of some mobocracy that determines who shall live and who shall die, basing their assumptions using minds that have been driven mad, driven into an illusory state, by a mass media controlled by corporate power that only desires to entrench itself, further and further...

Judges who can finally give more lenient sentences, and we can work towards a more just system of justice... something that's been fucked up for far too long. At least a decade, if not more.

too tired... g'night...


symbioidlj: (Default)

November 2015

1 234567


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 08:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios