The official blog of the Libertarian Party
June 27, 2005
A Turning Point for America?
By Stephen Gordon
The historian Alexis de Tocqueville noted, "There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one."
Not just with legislation, but with our core constitutional principals, the courts tend to have the final word about what is accepted as law in America.
With the recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) opinions in Raich v. Ashcroft (medicinal marijuana) and Kelo v. City of New London (eminent domain), this June will likely be regarded by future historians as a pivotal point in American history. Three significant deaths are to be recorded as a result of these two decisions: states' rights, individual rights, and property rights.
By invoking the commerce clause of the Constitution in the Raich decision, the SCOTUS has effectively relegated any item which may be purchased locally, made at home or grown in the garden to somehow qualify as interstate commerce. Effectively, this renders the states' rights portion of the Tenth Amendment dead, as any product or service may now fall within the auspices of the federal government. Worse yet, products which are never even placed on the market fall within federal grasp. As an extension of this decision, virtually anything may be regulated by the federal government, as it can impact the national market.
The implications regarding personal health decisions are clear cut. If one chooses, even in accordance with local law, to use medications not approved by the feds - he or she will be prosecuted. Since this decision, despite protestations to the contrary, our government has already initiated the process of arresting people for medical marijuana.
To their credit, the minority dissent of some of the conservatives on the court was pretty well reasoned. However, conservatives can take no credit on this issue as a whole, as Congress had an almost immediate chance to rectify the decision and failed to do so. It wasn't Democratic votes that doomed the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment. Republicans are the ones who decided the fates of countless Americans - dooming them to a fate of needless suffering, and in some cases, death.
In the Kelo case, the SCOTUS determined that the government may force you to sell your real property to someone else. This is not limited to some government entity for the purpose of building a government road or office - but is extended to other people or corporations - as long as the government states that it is for the greater good. Follow this decision to obvious future applications and you will see that your vehicle, guns, or even books may be taken from you at some future date. Like always, the key beneficiaries will be corporations such as Wal-Mart or Pfizer.
As with the Raich case, liberal judges are to blame in the Kelo decision. As opposed to the medical marijuana decision, expect Republicans to vehemently oppose the eminent domain outcome. To be sure, former Republican congressman and current Alabama Governor Bob Riley already has.
I'll offer the argument that the Republican outcry I expect on this issue is mere politicization of the issue. In the example provided, one must note that this is the same Bob Riley who recently proposed the greatest tax increase in Alabama history. As it included a new tax levied against providers of services, it would have disproportionately affected small businesses, the elderly, racial minorities and other in lower socio-economic groupings in the state.
Riley made his tax increase proposal immediately after assuming office. Now, as a very heated re-election campaign looms on the immediate horizon, he is suddenly very concerned about property rights.
Don't be fooled by sudden and recent GOP sympathy about eminent domain issues. They are merely exploiting the political opportunity du jour. Also consider that the Democrats have been relatively silent on the issue - aside from Daily Kos, which gloats, "It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands of the sort of property-rights extremism frequently displayed by right-wing libertarian types."
The Republicans have had their chance. Instead they prefer political expediency to compassion for people suffering from conditions like cancer, AIDS, and chronic pain. The Democrats have taken away our basic property rights in favor of big business. Despite their protestations, they are both in bed with Pfizer and countless other corporations.
In the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville also noted, "There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle."
Today, there are but very few men of principle in either major party. However, a "Party of Principle" has been established since de Tocqueville's day - the Libertarian Party. If you haven't already, isn't it about time to help us meet our immediate membership goal by jumping on board today?
Posted by Shane Cory at June 27, 2005 03:31 PM
Reader Comments:
Actually, there is a fourth turning point this month. Just today, the court ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in a public building violates the separation of church and state, but putting them on a public monument on public grounds for over 40 years does not. Apparently, it's the tradition of the thing that counts, rather than what's actually written in the Constitution.
On the other hand, maybe it's not really a turning point because quite clearly the Court cannot make up its own mind.
To whoever edits these articles: The beginning of this article includes the repetition of some opening paragraphs. You may want to fix this.
1) It looks as if the editing problem will have to wait until tomorrow. No one seems to be in the front office at this moment.
2) I wrote this before today's decisions came out - and have not had a chance to read though them, yet. It does seem to be another blow for states' rights - but I am not sure (with conflicting decisions) of the impact on seperation of church and state and related issues. I'm sure I'll enjoy reading those decisions tonight.
Anyone see the article at http://www.sierratimes.com/05/06/13/libertarian.htm? Very interesting. I don't advocate civil disobedience in general, but I admire what this guy was trying to say by his actions.
I especially like his wife's comment: "I don't think they can make us secure if they're bombing other countries. To be perfectly honest, I'm in far more danger from my own government than from any terrorist."
Well said.
"It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands of the sort of property-rights extremism frequently displayed by right-wing libertarian types."
I am really having a hard time swollowing that quote. From what I can make out this town was quickly becoming a ghost town. That means plenty of empty buildings a unused land. Instead of using this, the government kicks out the people who are happy in this town. Obiously the over bearing government of this town is to blame for its demise and for someone to praise them for the move is beyond belief.
Is the american way all about money now?
I love money! The country was founded by men that loved money. They earned that money and therefore understood the importance of property rights. Government steals their money so they are very ignorant when it comes to making an honest living.
This is a turning point. Unfourtantely, a good portion of people in this country won't care about this decision until Uncle Sam is making them sell their house so they can put in a Wal-Mart for the "common good". I'm no McCarthy but it kind of sounds like communism.
How everyone in the town leave? Leave no one left to pay taxes. Seriously, someone start an initiative. I would like to see it happen. And don't respond with how unreasonable it is, because I know it. Just humor me.
Please.
Oops! It should read "How *about* everyone in the town leave."
To the above that asked if "american way all about money now." I don't think it's ever not been about money. Money is property, you use it to purchase more propety. As I recall the nation was more or less started over taxation without representation. From there it blossomed to be about two things, freedom and property. These decisions above infringe on both of these. I shudder to think where current government(either Republicans with their new found zeal over federalization of states rights, or Democrats who just want to take my money and give it to someone else) are planning to take the country if left to their devices.
I am disturbed by the lukewarm reception of the media and general population about the recent supreme court decisions involving eminent domain and medicinal marijuana. The supreme court should make decisions based on the constitution but they seem to have made a lot of grave errors in recent times.
Wake Up everyone! our constitution outlines our RIGHTS. It is not just a historic document with interesting suggestions as our supreme court seems to feel it is.
This country has fought bloody wars in the past involving states rights, individual rights, and property rights and now these issues are minor talking points.
These issues should have been front page news for a week or so but they weren't.
We the people should DEMAND that our supreme court follow the sacred documents that this country was founded on. I for one want to see the heat turned way up under these justices and if there isn't some major backtracking perhaps there should be some impeachments.
Forget Michael Jackson, this is the REAL news!
I am waiting for the outrage and fireworks to start soon.
I've been looking over the various editorials and letters to the editor regarding the Kelo decision on private property rights. So far, I've seen a mixture of newspaper editorials...some in favor, some against. However, while I have found a fair number of letters to the editor condemning the ruling, I have yet to see one letter to the editor favoring it. Granted, this is nowhere near a scientific survey, but it's still interesting.
Also, I spoke with a Libertarian in Virginia Beach, VA, where Libertarian Mayoral candidate Robert Dean nearly pulled off an electoral surprise a couple of years ago winning 42% of the vote that year. My contact told me that property owners in that town are privately expressing a lot of outrage about it.
It would be interesting to see if any major media outlet has done a public opinion poll on this issue. I haven't found one yet. Has anyone else?
The reason that there is no media firestorm over this outrage is because the general public doesn't really care about this decision. Of course there are plenty of us who can see the long-term ramifications of this travesty, but the majority of Americans are more interested in who won American Idol than what the Supreme Court is doing.
Who's to blame for this? I say not the media. They are merely giving out what the public wants. Media companies are for profit enterprises meaning that they need to create a product that is demanded by the public. Unfortunately, it's the sad truth that the general public cares more about Michael Jackson than this ridiculous ruling by the Supreme Court.
So what's the solution? I think we need to find, organize, and gather news sources that deliver the news that we know matters and market the hell out of it. Until this country wises up, the large media companies will continue to churn out the useless garbage that the majority of Americans so crave.
Bingo Mr. Silverstein!
At a couple of forums that I posted this news snippet on - it elicited barely a response.
Some claimed that "Well, it's for the publuc good".
It appals me that some find nothing wrong in being wishy-washy over grabbing the property of others without justifiable cause. It seems the ubiquitous "for the greater good" can be used to excuse anything.
Once this was done, they all went back to moaning about Merican Idol (you were right there).
My despair knows no bounds...
I think we should give some respect to some of the "men of priciple" in the other party. I think almost everybody here is familar with Rep. Ron Paul(R) out of Texas. This man is with out a doubt 100% libertarian. Some people you may not have heard of but have a very good pro-liberty voting records: Rep Jeff Flake (R)of AZ who introduced CATO's soc sec plan deserves the support of librty lovers, Rep. Scott Ganett (R) out of NJ made a stirring speach the other day about the death of federlism and has worked to slashed budgets and cut taxes also deserves our support. Zach Wamp (R) of Tenn. has described himself on the house floor as a libertarian deserves a look. I believe the Republican party has shown itself to be a good vehicle to get libertarian ideas to public office. We just need to help these guys get into the driver's seat. As you can imagine party leadership have locked these guys out of leadership roles.
This is indeed a turning point and definitely a chance for the LP to gain some significant ground. Now if we could get them to create a decent website and if they could figure out how to market themselves, we might have a chance.
Matt says, "I believe the Republican party has shown itself to be a good vehicle to get libertarian ideas to public office. We just need to help these guys get into the driver's seat. As you can imagine party leadership have locked these guys out of leadership roles."
I might consider supporting these guys if they (and Ron Paul, and any principled Demos) would abandon the GOP and join the LP. Back when the Demos were in charge, the GOP played the "put us in the driver seat" song several times; people bought it. The GOP is in the driver seat now, and I see the cliff swiftly approaching. They have broken promise after promise ("contract" after "contract"!): at this point, I am convinced that there is no saving the GOP, at least in any timeframe that will allow my family and me to enjoy greater liberty in our lifetimes. To be fair, I came to that conclusion a couple of decades ago, and subsequent events have only confirmed it. I can't believe that anyone holds out hope for a GOP reformation at this late date. Please don't fall for that same old song -- however sincerely sung -- anymore. The singing on American Idol is a lot better, even William Hung's.
The current LP website is not bad - it just does not have enough features or interaction between members. These things can be added and should be added.
But there's so much more that COULD be done. I would first add official LP forums and round up some volunteer moderators, becuase we sure are gonna need em! This will give the Party a online discussion forum which I think is sorely needed.
The "blog" here is somewhat of a blog, but there needs to be more. I think it's not asking too much for certain LP staff and all of the members of the LNC to have a offical blogspace on LP.org and to just do ONE ENTRY A WEEK. I can hammer out a entry in 15 minutes, and so can they. There needs to be more communication from the top down, and more listening from the bottom up.
For the future: since the MSM ignores us every single election cycle, we are going to have to make our OWN MEDIA thru portable cams and video reporting at major campaign events, like the 2006 Convention and individual members campaigns. Lp.Org needs a video on demand portal where they can showcase campaigns and events around the country. Yes, this will cost $$$, and the membership is going to have to support it.
It wont work without volunteers that are willing to tape reports on these events, and can do editing and such. There needs to be a pool of libertarians nationwide who can respond quickly and produce webcast quality feeds to HQ. There are probably a few hundred people in the LP who fit that description.
There is so much to do if you open your mind and think about what is possible and how to bend the envelope. But I'm not sure if any of this is possible without the zero dues proposal passing and the party adding everyone in the country who has registered libertarian to the fundraiser list.
Doing so will greatly increase the amount of available funds that is possible for the LP to tap into. It's either zero-dues or 50 bucks a year, take your pick. I'll take zero dues, and I'll give MORE than 50 bucks a year provided it GOES TO THE PROJECTS I WANT. I encourage the LP to set up dedicated funds for each major undertaking, I get you would get more dollars per donation that way. The donor would KNOW their money went to what they wanted.
I think the current leadership wants to go in the right direction, but they are caught in the middle and unsure about leaving the past behind. I see little glimmers of hope, and the major thing that has to be done is to PASS THE ZERO_DUES PROPOSAL
James - Both of the major parties sold libertarians down the river: the Democrats in the 1890s and the Republicans in the early 1940s. You mentioned that the GOP is now in the driver's seat and the cliff is swiftly approaching. I say let them drive off the cliff. Who knows? It might lead to the Libertarian Party replacing the GOP as a major party. If the Democrats regain the driver seat, then let them drive off the cliff.
What about the loss of our First Amendment right to free speech? If you speak out against your state, county, or even local government they can retaliate by depriving you of your property. For the public good of course.
I blame the media completely. The media shouldn't care about American Idol or any other b.s. out there. It's the media's job to make America care about their rights being violated.
Tim West has some EXCELLENT ideas for improving the LP website and presense. Offical (moderated) LP forums would certainly be a great way. A more prominent Blog (maybe a Tab for it at the top, instead of just a link in a sidebar). A links page, including links to so many of the great libertarian blogs out there, or if there would be concern of some bloggers views possibly being misconstrued as the "party line" then just links to other liberty loving organizations, like CATO and EFF.
How about the Action Items being set up like http://action.eff.org where real action items will allow a user to email letters to their congresspersons about LP issues as they arise.
Maybe a Members Only section with things like minutes of the governing body's mettings/conferences or other related minutia that some members may be interested in. Heck even the forum could be membership only if you wanted to add incentive to membership in the LP (although I must state again that I'm actually for the removal of membership dues and the pledge, but they could still be considered perks for some donation levels.)
Definitely remember that dynamic content is what will keep folks coming back to the site and keep them interested and excited about what you have going on here.
James-
I am not talking about supporting the gop, I'm talking about supporting indviduals that have proven that they can run on libertarian ideas and win. The Republicans have tried to defeat Ron Paul in the primary and thanks to libertarians all around the nation we have still have a very good spokeperson for our ideals in the US Congress. I think his influence has grown and I don't think it would be a good idea to turn ou backs on people that our advocating our postions just because they have an R next to their name.
Justice Souter should get what he wants. No property rights for America, means none for the Justice that voted for it.
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. [Supreme Court Justice David H.] 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."
. . . "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.
Matt -
In other words, Justice Souter is learning the hard way that payback's a b!+ch. He has reeped what he has sown and I hope that his property gets taken in much the same way he took the property of that family in New London, CT.
I would visit that hotel.
I gotta check in ASAP. It's gonna be awhile.
The medical marijuana decision is an interesting item. I say let state licensed physicians practice according to state law. What does the federal government have to do with it?
This business of eminant domain has stunned me. I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. What do you do about this? If it were my property, I am not sure how I would respond. This is so very wrong.
I think it is time to look for allies, regardless of party. This MUST be undone. The Libertarian party should issue a call to ALL freedom loving citizens to urge their federal representatives to fix this. Even if it means a Constitutional amendment. This should not stand.
Something I just sent to WAL-MART:
"I am astounded by your involvement in the use of eminant domain to secure the government seizure of private property for your use. The idea that increased tax revenue is THE greater good for a community is preposterous. If you ask me, your are a threat to american freedom. The supreme court may be in your pocket, but I am not. I will not step foot into your stores again unless you publically promise to foreswear the use of eminant domain and further financially support the right of a citizen to stay on their private property."
I'll be looking for others to send it to. Pass it on.
I think Karl's idea is very good. If we could organize a boycott, maybe at least in CT, while it won't put Wal-Mart out of business it may draw some of the media attention that seems to be squandered elsewhere.
#1 Roger Macbride
#2 Ed Clark
#3 Harry Browne
#4 David Bergland
#5 John Hospers
#6 Ron Paul
#7 Michael Badnarik
...Andre Marrou doesn't deserved to be ranked.
How about asking Ron Paul to run for president for our party?
I like your letter, Karl.
I've already been boycotting Wal-mart for a couple of years. There are a lot of other ethical issues with wal-mart.
To the unnamed poster:
Ron Paul did run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. He garnered 0.3% of the vote, behind George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. I know I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he ran again. Paul has a track record of consistently working for libertarian principles in the House and is a staunch fiscal conservative. However, it seems to me that he has decided to work within the Republican Party to enact change. I'd be surprised if he came back to run for what looks like a flailing LP, even if he is a life member of the party.
the hotel project needs lawyers and architects.
please contact them if you can help
will the political advisors at the LP be responding to the President's address with a press release??
this is a hot button issue, the LP should not remain silent.
How about John McCain on our presidentual ticket?He's not going to win the Republican nomination and its been rummered he my be considering running as an independant. This would get our name on the news and probably cost the Republicans the presidentcy. Not a bad thing with the republicans controlling the House and Senate.This might just slow down the damage being inflicted on the Constitution by the two major parties.
Donn - There is no way that McCain will run on the Libertarian Party ticket. He doesn't even have libertarian views.
Ron Paul would be an excellent choice, but he's in his mid-70's and has stated that he's not interested in running.
However, there's a guy from Cincinnati named Tom Brinkman (www.gobrinkman.com) who's an Ohio House member. He's currently vying for the seat of Rob Portman in the U.S. House.
Rep. Brinkman authored a Vermont-style concealed carry bill for Ohio a few years back and voted against tax hikes.
He seems like a great candidate.
George Combs II -
What are Tom Brinkman's positions on other issues.
I recieved this link by email today. Its a link to sign a petition so someone can obtain David Sutter's home and build a hotel on his property. Give David Sutter a taste of his own decision, and sign this petionion. Probally won't happen, but it makes a good point. :)
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/mail/compose/?alertid=7771381&agencyid=7771356&agencyid=7771361&agencyid=7771366&agencyid=7771371&agencyid=7771376&target=CU&target=CU&target=CU&target=CU&target=CU&customid=7771356&customid=7771361&customid=7771366&customid=7771371&customid=7771376&type=CU
Heres a copy of the petition:
"I am writing to ask you to please agree to the proposal by Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media, LLC, to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare.
Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to Mr. Clements' LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that Mr. Clements' hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.
The "Kelo" decision, led by Justice David Souter, was a very poor one, and I can see no more fitting way to point out its drawbacks than to take Justice Souter's land as the "Kelo" decision dictates. Please, help see that "Justice Is Served" on property rights in America. Thank you."
Tommy, Tom Brinkman's staunchly against abortion, which I am in agreement with. However, while his drug war policy is hardly libertarian in tone, it's still a lot saner than our present policies. Rather than imprisoning non-violent offenders, Mr. Brinkman offers an alternative: put them in a program that would cost just $5,000 per year per patient, rather than putting them in a prison, which costs $22,000 per inmate. The patient would have to pay the $5,000 back. It's not quite what I'd advise, but it's certainly better that what we've got now.
Re Kelo vs. City of New London -- How about this for a much-needed amendment to the Constitution:
Under the guise of Eminent Domain, and when devised to further private economic enterprise(s), no government within or presiding over these United States, its Territories or Possessions, shall condemn and appropriate Private Property belonging to one individual(s) and subsequently sell, transfer or otherwise exchange said Property to another individual(s), organization, corporation or government authority.
| 
Actually, there is a fourth turning point this month. Just today, the court ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in a public building violates the separation of church and state, but putting them on a public monument on public grounds for over 40 years does not. Apparently, it's the tradition of the thing that counts, rather than what's actually written in the Constitution.
On the other hand, maybe it's not really a turning point because quite clearly the Court cannot make up its own mind.
Posted by: Libertarian TV at June 27, 2005 04:04 PM