Police attacking the left across Midwest

[Ned]

HO on the issue of a long it takes to get a permit to issue if the clerk denies the permit, it depends. The ordinances usually require that one apply at least 28 days prior to the event. This should give everyone time to maneuver legally if that is required. Courts can and do issue restraining orders very quickly if the circumstances require. All one has to do is look at the events surrounding the election controversy between Bush and Gore to see that even the Supreme Court can act on a matter on a number of hours, if necessary.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest

Originally posted by chegitz guevara




. Of course, I believe that a truely democratic system would lead to the latter eventually. It's also what the framers thought, which is why they designed our system to be rather undemocratic.

only some of the framers - madison, hamilton and Jay notably, whose views are particularly remembered as they wrote the federalist papers. I daresay Jefferson and his numerous followers did not think so at all, but thought that democracy was the best way to defend private property, especially the private property of the small holders.

I daresay that TJ proved correct, as the repeated movement away from the 1789 constitution to a more democratic one has resulted in numerous limitations on private property, but no real shift to communal property - essentially the class interests of the small holders have won out (to the extent they havent taken the large property holders head on) , as TJ intended. while the extent of this can be disputed, and is the subejct of US politics to this day, it seems unlikely that any shift to further direct democracy would shift us toward communal property - more likely it would shift the balance between the small holders and the large property holders.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Ned
HO on the issue of a long it takes to get a permit to issue if the clerk denies the permit, it depends. The ordinances usually require that one apply at least 28 days prior to the event.

28 DAYS ? Are you sure you're not confusing this with something else, it looks extremely restrictive.

If say the location of a meeting of politicians is announced 1 week ahead, I would have no chance to demonstrate legally against that. It looks like an invitation for abuse, especially if you don't find a swift court.

[The Templar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I daresay that TJ proved correct, as the repeated movement away from the 1789 constitution to a more democratic one has resulted in numerous limitations on private property, but no real shift to communal property - essentially the class interests of the small holders have won out (to the extent they havent taken the large property holders head on) , as TJ intended. while the extent of this can be disputed, and is the subejct of US politics to this day, it seems unlikely that any shift to further direct democracy would shift us toward communal property - more likely it would shift the balance between the small holders and the large property holders.

This is far to rosy a picture. In reality, the practice of eminent domain has escaped all boundaries. That is, the practice of condemning property for public use. At first this practise was limited to buying out someone's house to build a highway. Fair enough. Then it started being used to buy out someone's house to build a sports stadium. Local governments justified this on the grounds that the stadium was for the good of the community. Never mind the fact that pro-sports is a billion dollar INDUSTRY that can afford to build their own stadiums AND don't really bring that many high-paying jobs to the community. But - people are stupid over sports teams. (I used to live in New Orleans - and the amount of money that the city, i.e. taxpayers, would pay for the Saints to stay was disgusting. Far more than the Saints returned to the community in the form of minimum wage food service jobs.)

Now we get to the final straw. Home Depot has a bad habit of getting local municipalites to condemn longstanding local businesses and homes because another f***ing Home Depot would make more money and therefore return more tax revenue to the community. In other words, the city, using taxpayers' money, forcibly buys out homes and businesses in order to make a sweatheart deal with a megacorporation! (And BTW, in the Tuscon case where this happened, the condemned land was sold to HD at a fraction of the price it cost to condemn - i.e. the taxpayers subsidized kicking people out of their businesses to build a damn Home Depot. What, home depot can't afford to build a new store on their own dime?)

Of course, almost any land use is more efficient that single family housing - so its almost always a colorable case that another Sprawlmart or Kick-You-Out-of-Your-Home Depot will be a "better" use of the land. So whatever our system is now, it sure as hell does not protect the small holder. At least not against large megacorps. Remember that when you buy your nice little suburban home, you conservative chumps. There's your free f***ing market. Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest

Originally posted by The Templar


This is far to rosy a picture. In reality, the practice of eminent domain has escaped all boundaries. That is, the practice of condemning property for public use. At first this practise was limited to buying out someone's house to build a highway. Fair enough. Then it started being used to buy out someone's house to build a sports stadium. Local governments justified this on the grounds that the stadium was for the good of the community. Never mind the fact that pro-sports is a billion dollar INDUSTRY that can afford to build their own stadiums AND don't really bring that many high-paying jobs to the community. But - people are stupid over sports teams. (I used to live in New Orleans - and the amount of money that the city, i.e. taxpayers, would pay for the Saints to stay was disgusting. Far more than the Saints returned to the community in the form of minimum wage food service jobs.)

Now we get to the final straw. Home Depot has a bad habit of getting local municipalites to condemn longstanding local businesses and homes because another f***ing Home Depot would make more money and therefore return more tax revenue to the community. In other words, the city, using taxpayers' money, forcibly buys out homes and businesses in order to make a sweatheart deal with a megacorporation! (And BTW, in the Tuscon case where this happened, the condemned land was sold to HD at a fraction of the price it cost to condemn - i.e. the taxpayers subsidized kicking people out of their businesses to build a damn Home Depot. What, home depot can't afford to build a new store on their own dime?)

Of course, almost any land use is more efficient that single family housing - so its almost always a colorable case that another Sprawlmart or Kick-You-Out-of-Your-Home Depot will be a "better" use of the land. So whatever our system is now, it sure as hell does not protect the small holder. At least not against large megacorps. Remember that when you buy your nice little suburban home, you conservative chumps. There's your free f***ing market. Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

must be an east coast west coast thing or something - where i live its very hard to displace existing single family housing - as a result we end up with developers building townhouses 30 miles from the center city, while not particularly luxurious single family home neighborhoods sit walking distance of rail transit, 10 miles from the center city.

In fact the zoning will make it hard to build a non-conforming use even on your own property in a single family neighborhood - the people denying your property rights are your fellow small holders, doing it for the sake of their own interests.

Im sure big property interests make themselves felt in many instances, other interests come into play as well.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest

Originally posted by The Templar
This is far to rosy a picture. In reality, the practice of eminent domain has escaped all boundaries. That is, the practice of condemning property for public use. At first this practise was limited to buying out someone's house to build a highway. Fair enough. Then it started being used to buy out someone's house to build a sports stadium. Local governments justified this on the grounds that the stadium was for the good of the community. Never mind the fact that pro-sports is a billion dollar INDUSTRY that can afford to build their own stadiums AND don't really bring that many high-paying jobs to the community. But - people are stupid over sports teams. (I used to live in New Orleans - and the amount of money that the city, i.e. taxpayers, would pay for the Saints to stay was disgusting. Far more than the Saints returned to the community in the form of minimum wage food service jobs.)

Now we get to the final straw. Home Depot has a bad habit of getting local municipalites to condemn longstanding local businesses and homes because another f***ing Home Depot would make more money and therefore return more tax revenue to the community. In other words, the city, using taxpayers' money, forcibly buys out homes and businesses in order to make a sweatheart deal with a megacorporation! (And BTW, in the Tuscon case where this happened, the condemned land was sold to HD at a fraction of the price it cost to condemn - i.e. the taxpayers subsidized kicking people out of their businesses to build a damn Home Depot. What, home depot can't afford to build a new store on their own dime?)

Of course, almost any land use is more efficient that single family housing - so its almost always a colorable case that another Sprawlmart or Kick-You-Out-of-Your-Home Depot will be a "better" use of the land. So whatever our system is now, it sure as hell does not protect the small holder. At least not against large megacorps. Remember that when you buy your nice little suburban home, you conservative chumps. There's your free f***ing market. Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

Moving resources is a necessity. Why should social progress be prevented to benefit an individual?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you mean by the constitutional text, it's debatable. If you mean in constitutional practice, not at all.

Well I was talking theory .

Huh? Intent (be it historical, be it telos in text) is a general method of interpretation that per se has nothing to do with natural law. The two can only coincide if the historical legislator sought to implement natural law (to some extent your constitution, or our civil code). The actual 180 degree opposite to natural law thinking would be positivism.

Oh, it's one of those wierd things we do in the states. Some believe that natural law is the 'intent of the framers', instead of simply God's will or humanitarianism, etc.

And isn't positism basically textualism, more or less?

[Chris 62]

Police attacking the left across Midwest

Originally posted by Ned
Chris, it is more interesting because one of the first things the communists would do upon taking power would be to repeal the Bill of Rights.

Very likely Ned.

While the commies were having a discussion awhile back about the fine points of their dogma, I asked simply whether they would support the Bill of Rights in any new communist government. I got no replies. Perhaps they thought the question was so off the wall as to be not worthy of a reply.

Well, most communists believe that a supreme authority should make all decisions, so rights aern't needed, as long as they are the authority.

But what makes America the nation we are is that we are willing to respect the constitutional rights of those who, if in power, would destroy the constitution. By respecting their rights, we demonstrate how ludicrous communism really is.

We bend them at times.

I was actually just teasing Che, whom I know a long time.

[SlowwHand]

The authorities need to round-up all these Midwest Commies and ship them to Guantanamo Bay.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Moving resources is a necessity. Why should social progress be prevented to benefit an individual?

How is a Home Depot progress?

Actually I agree with you here to some extent. However, we supposedly live in a system based on private property - or at least conservatives are always touting private property. I assume conservatives have a (non-utilitarian) moral foundation for property, and do not justify private property only on utilitarian grounds. But then progress - which is the quintessential utilitarian justification - is not reason enough to take that to which one has a moral claim.

Now the reason a conservative will make a moral claim to property (and I am sympathetic to this argument) is that "progress" is often in the eye of the beholder. For me, progress would be clearing the suburbs and planting a forrest, eliminating automobiles in favor of more extensive mass transit, etc. My friend who lives out on Long Island sees progress as suburbs, SUVs and minivans, and sprawl as far as the eye can see. Progress for him is away from an urban lifestyle. Thus where there is no social consensus about the direction in which progress lies, property - for the conservative - is a way of maximizing value choices by testing how much people are willing to pay in the market to bring that vision to fruition.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The authorities need to round-up all these Midwest Commies and ship them to Guantanamo Bay.

For riding bikes without a liscence? I didn't even know you needed a liscence

[The Templar]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The authorities need to round-up all these Midwest Commies and ship them to Guantanamo Bay.

Actually, I think we should give Texas back to Mexico - and tell all the crackers in Dallas that they are Mexicans now.

(Note: I have no idea if Slowwhand is a cracker and this comment is not directed personally at him. However, I know enough crackers in Dallas to say they would be livid at the idea of being Mexican. And the idea of Bush country being sent to Mexico is as funny to me as denying due process to lefties is to Slowwhand.)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Templar
How is a Home Depot progress?

This is usually done in depressed neighborhoods where more jobs are needed. Also, Home Depot does provide a service to the community. I shop there myself

Originally posted by The Templar
Now the reason a conservative will make a moral claim to property (and I am sympathetic to this argument) is that "progress" is often in the eye of the beholder. For me, progress would be clearing the suburbs and planting a forrest, eliminating automobiles in favor of more extensive mass transit, etc. My friend who lives out on Long Island sees progress as suburbs, SUVs and minivans, and sprawl as far as the eye can see. Progress for him is away from an urban lifestyle. Thus where there is no social consensus about the direction in which progress lies, property - for the conservative - is a way of maximizing value choices by testing how much people are willing to pay in the market to bring that vision to fruition.

Yeah, all they care about is profit. Home Depot will bring profit, but in this case I have to say that it will also benefit the community.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

I don't understand how the President is to blame for local municipalities abusing eminent domain.

(Personally I believe more thing should fall under eminent domain. Allowing states and localities to take property because of 'police powers' and not reimburse is a horrible practice, IMO. And even when there is eminent domain, it should be used sparingly.)

[HershOstropoler]

Imran:

"Well I was talking theory"

Even in theory it's hardly unique.

"Oh, it's one of those wierd things we do in the states. Some believe that natural law is the 'intent of the framers',"

Well there is a lot of natural law thinking behind your constitution, but if you consider the quite obvious intent of the framers not to touch slavery, that's not classic natural law thinking.

"And isn't positism basically textualism, more or less? "

That depends upon the positive law.