Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Imagine this, then. Imagine the army wants to build a fortress on the commanidng heights overlooking the main road into a city. But the city wants to zone it for condos in order to increase its property tax. Who wins?

The U S Govt can seize property it wants, i.e. eminent domain, I have seen it here around Camp Lejeune North Carolina several times.

eminent domain n. the power of a governmental entity (Federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [may not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement of just compensation to state and local government takings. The usual process includes passage of a resolution by the acquiring agency to take the property (condemnation), including a declaration of public need, followed by an appraisal, an offer, and then negotiation. If the owner is not satisfied, he/she may sue the governmental agency for a court's determination of just compensation. The government, however, becomes owner while a trial is pending, if the amount of the offer is deposited in a trust account. Public uses include schools, streets and highways, parks, airports, dams, reservoirs, redevelopment, public housing, hospitals and public buildings.

[David Floyd]

Kid,

I'm sorry I didn't know that Imran was making such a ridiculous argument. "The power to zone is the power to destroy." So you are both saying that the city of Berkeley can prevent the US govt from raising an army by their zoning power? Wow that is truly incredible.

Neither could Maryland have destroyed the US Bank by taxing it within Maryland's borders. That isn't the point. The point at hand is the supremacy of the federal government and their ability to execute their Constitutionally granted powers without constraint, no matter how minor.

[David Floyd]

Seriously, it's very painfull to try to figure out what is going on in your head. Let me ask you this. Would you rather have the right to join any political party or have the right to force a community other than your own to allow military recruiters to set up shop next to high schools? If you have to choose which one would you choose.

Now you are operating the the same fairy land you accuse us of being in. There is no option at hand. I don't have to choose between the right to join a political party or the ability of the federal government to set up recruiting centers wherever they want. Both exist, you and Berkeley notwithstanding.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


:

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have the right to join any political party or have the right to force a community other than your own to allow military recruiters to set up shop next to high schools? .

False dichotomy

Originally posted by Kidicious


If you have to choose which one would you choose. Hell, you will probably still not get it. All I can say is one of us suffers from mental illness.

kid -- I do not suffer from a mental illness. Can you deduce what follows if your premise is true ??

Originally posted by Kidicious


You will just say that I'm arrogant or hypocritical for saying that, but seriously you should really agree that one of us has to be crazy.

I do think you are a hyprocrit to support a government actor in restricting how people can meet, greet and seek or promote certain forms of employment. If it were any cause that you supported you would be ranting on the other side of the issue.

I don't think that any reader of your posts can deny that

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kid,



Neither could Maryland have destroyed the US Bank by taxing it within Maryland's borders. That isn't the point. The point at hand is the supremacy of the federal government and their ability to execute their Constitutionally granted powers without constraint, no matter how minor.

The federal government is clearly not all powerfull. It only has stated powers. That's the Supremacy Clause that we've been talking about.

The law in question would not prevent the federal government from raising an army.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Now you are operating the the same fairy land you accuse us of being in. There is no option at hand. I don't have to choose between the right to join a political party or the ability of the federal government to set up recruiting centers wherever they want. Both exist, you and Berkeley notwithstanding.

Human rights are quite different from the rights of governments. So we do have to choose between the two sometimes. I would think you would know this. But my point was that one trumps the other, not about choosing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I do think you are a hyprocrit to support a government actor in restricting how people can meet, greet and seek or promote certain forms of employment. If it were any cause that you supported you would be ranting on the other side of the issue.

I don't think that any reader of your posts can deny that

I honestly can't see why you don't understand my point, but I can clearly see that you don't understand what the issue is here.

You see this isn't about 18 year olds not being able to join the military. For some reason you've got that stuck in your head, but this law won't prevent 18 year olds from finding out about the military or joining if they wish.

This is about one community or mulitple communities imposing control over one or more other communities.

Again, I seriously doubt that any of this will get through to you, but I mention it anyway.

[David Floyd]

Kid,

The law in question would not prevent the federal government from raising an army.

But it would if a significant number of cities passed the same law. That still isn't the point. I don't recall any element of case law on the matter saying that scope or amount was in any way relevant. I mean, what do you think the standard is? Berkeley can actively interfere with the recruitment of soldiers, as long as the number stays below 1000?

Also, what don't you understand about Supremacy? The local and state governments can't pass laws restricting mailmen from doing their jobs. What makes you think they can pass laws restricting the US military?

Jesus Christ, arguing with you really is like beating my head against a wall. You either really don't get it, or you are just being a ****.

Human rights are quite different from the rights of governments.

And a basic human right is to have the option of not living next to a recruiting center?

Oh, wait. You DO have that option - if it's that objectionable you can move.

But that's not your point either, is it? You really, truly think that the mere existence of military recruiting posts is fundamentally at odds with human rights. Right?

So we do have to choose between the two sometimes. I would think you would know this. But my point was that one trumps the other, not about choosing.

But neither, in this case, trumps the other, my tongue-in-cheek argument above aside.

This is about one community or mulitple communities imposing control over one or more other communities.

But you clearly don't believe that, because you have expressly stated that no matter what the rest of the country thinks, your city should NOT be allowed to "aggressively zone" Communist Party HQ, because you have a right to a political party.

Fair enough. I even agee with you. But then, this issue clearly isn't about democracy or majority rule to you, is it? It isn't to me either. You see, democracy/majority rule, if allowed to run the show unchecked, is often quite at odds with basic human rights. See, e.g., the French Revolution. So don't make this issue about human rights, or local democracy, or any of that nonsense. Nobody's freedom is oppressed by the US government exercising a power necessary and proper to maintaining an army - in fact, the opposite is true, and I think you damn well know it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But it would if a significant number of cities passed the same law. That still isn't the point. I don't recall any element of case law on the matter saying that scope or amount was in any way relevant. I mean, what do you think the standard is? Berkeley can actively interfere with the recruitment of soldiers, as long as the number stays below 1000?

Oh for Christ's sake. It doesn't ****ing matter if all the cities in the US passed such laws, not that such a situation should be plausable to anyone, but the army would still be able to recruit without hanging out in front of high schools. I've repeated myself too many times here. If you don't want to accept reason then **** it.

Also, what don't you understand about Supremacy? The local and state governments can't pass laws restricting mailmen from doing their jobs. What makes you think they can pass laws restricting the US military?

The Supremacy Clause also limits the powers of the fed govt. It doesn't meant that the states have no power. I've already repeated that as well.

Jesus Christ, arguing with you really is like beating my head against a wall. You either really don't get it, or you are just being a ****.

You should stop repeating other peoples arguments then.

And a basic human right is to have the option of not living next to a recruiting center?

Oh, wait. You DO have that option - if it's that objectionable you can move.

WTF?! I definitely liked the old DF more. Who the **** are you? One community has the right to impose control on another community, and if that community doesn't like it they should just move? What the hell happens when the authoritarian community just starts imposing control at their new home?

But that's not your point either, is it? You really, truly think that the mere existence of military recruiting posts is fundamentally at odds with human rights. Right?

Jesus ****ing Christ. Not only do you repeat the same ****ing arguments that others have made you pick out the most absurd. This law will not eliminate recruiting posts. For christs sake! How the hell can so many people make the same ****ing ridiculous claim.

But neither, in this case, trumps the other, my tongue-in-cheek argument above aside.

I'm not going to be responsible because you have no idea why the argument was relavent. It appears that you haven't read the thread, or at least a good portion of it.

But you clearly don't believe that, because you have expressly stated that no matter what the rest of the country thinks, your city should NOT be allowed to "aggressively zone" Communist Party HQ, because you have a right to a political party.

Fair enough. I even agee with you. But then, this issue clearly isn't about democracy or majority rule to you, is it? It isn't to me either. You see, democracy/majority rule, if allowed to run the show unchecked, is often quite at odds with basic human rights. See, e.g., the French Revolution. So don't make this issue about human rights, or local democracy, or any of that nonsense. Nobody's freedom is oppressed by the US government exercising a power necessary and proper to maintaining an army - in fact, the opposite is true, and I think you damn well know it.

Oh ****. I have no comment on the rest of this crap. My God!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sorry I didn't know that Imran was making such a ridiculous argument. "The power to zone is the power to destroy." So you are both saying that the city of Berkeley can prevent the US govt from raising an army by their zoning power? Wow that is truly incredible.

I'm sorry that perhaps the actual quote that the Supreme Court will use (especially if its Scalia, he loves being somewhat humorous in opinions) if the case gets granted cert, if the law passes, causes you such fits of laughter.

I also think you need to go back and take some Constitutional Law classes... mostly because you are incredibly wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'm sorry that perhaps the actual quote that the Supreme Court will use (especially if its Scalia, he loves being somewhat humorous in opinions) if the case gets granted cert, if the law passes, causes you such fits of laughter.

I also think you need to go back and take some Constitutional Law classes... mostly because you are incredibly wrong.

I'll take your advice, but I can assure you that I still will not believe that allowing cities to zone recruiting posts will destroy the federal government and it's military. Sorry, about that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't have to believe anything (especially not the strawman you are bringing up - the statement is about the federal government's supremacy from being constrained in any way by the states), but that's what the court will rule, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't have to believe anything (especially not the strawman you are bringing up - the statement is about the federal government's supremacy from being constrained in any way by the states), but that's what the court will rule, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

You know it's not a strawman. The court invoked the necessary and proper clause. If allowing the local communities to zone recruitment posts will not destroy the army, or even prevent them from recruiting then it's not necessary and proper to prevent the communities from passing such laws.

So if you want to make arguments please do so, but don't just throw around false accusations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You know it's not a strawman. The court invoked the necessary and proper clause. If allowing the local communities to zone recruitment posts will not destroy the army, or even prevent them from recruiting then it's not necessary and proper to prevent the communities from passing such laws.

So if you want to make arguments please do so, but don't just throw around false accusations.

It's a strawman. And you don't understand the necessary and proper clause at all (hint: it has to do with what Congress has the power to do).

Read McCulloch v. Maryland.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's a strawman.

In the case you mentioned the court said, "the power to tax is the power to destroy" as in destroy the bank. You are saying that the power to zone is the power to destroy, as in destroy the military or at least it's ability to recruit in Berkeley. Knock off the crap!

And you don't understand the necessary and proper clause at all (hint: it has to do with what Congress has the power to do).

Read McCulloch v. Maryland.

Bull****! I've read it just as you have. I know it has to do with what Congress can do. This is a different case though. It's a new issue and we'll just have to see what happens. You want us to believe (1) that the states have no powers whatsoever and (2) that this case has alread been decided. You are wrong on both accounts.