Lost Liberty in on the website.
Freestarmedia.com

http://www.topplebush.com/photos.shtml

That'll teach the man a lesson. More power to those folks.

I've little vacation time or money in any given year, but if they succeed I'll have to very seriously consider making the Lost Liberty Hotel an annual pilgrimage.

While I do oppose taking Justice Souter's property by force out of principle, I really just can't feel too bad about it. He certainly does deserve it, but I'm a bit weary that it may set a dangerous precedent in NH that can be abused in the future.

It really could go a few different ways, that being it could teach some politicians a valuable lesson, but I'm not so sure it would be interpreted that way. It may actually solidify the argument for eminent domain, if Souter doesn't put up a fuss about it. It's a tough call. I think a better, more proactive response should be petitioning states to amend their constitutions to ban eminent domain altogether.

Because in principle, it comes down to two things. Either you own your own property and don't have to sell it at any price or have it taken by force if you don't want to, or the state owns it, and you're merely "allowed" to have it as long as the politicians don't want it. Obviously, we prefer the former.

I support the Lost Liberty Hotel Cause. Souter, other members of the Supreme Court, and ALL OF THE POLITICIANS DESERVE A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE. I also hope one day that we Libertarians can UNITE with a platform and an idea to kick out through legal means, the Republicans and Democrats. I have one idea: "VOTE FOR AMERICA, VOTE LIBERTARIAN" with the Statue of Liberty and Red, White, and Blue Colors in the Background [For Bumper Stickers, Commercials, even CD-ROMS [the CD-ROM idea was used by the Greens in New Zealand].

I hope they are successful in giving Justice David H. Souter a taste of his own medicine. After that, I hope they are sucessful at using eminent domain to also take the properties of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer and Anthony Kennedy. Let's see if they would like it.

Don't forget John Paul Jones.

That is, John Paul Stevens.

I think the lost liberty hotel could be the Libertarian Whitehouse what you think?

The way it looks at this time, it seems that Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the Supreme Court. No doubt he will be the pivitol vote to restrict or overturn Roe v Wade. That is a given. He will also be the pivitol vote to overturn the McCain-Feigold Campaign Act, Thank God!

As for the eminent domain ruling, sadly, the votes are not there to overturn it. One Justice will have to retire and be replaced with a pro-property rights judge. The way it looks right now, it will either be Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 85 years of age, or it will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is suffering from physical ailments.

Now doubt, by the end of the Court's term in June, one of the Justices will retire. Personally, I hope it is John Paul Stevens and I hope he will be replaced by libertarian-conservative jurist Janice Rodgers Brown.

Janice Rogers Brown would be my dream jurist, but I know that no way in hell will she be nominated.

Roe V Wade should not be overturned, I am sick of the pro-life hypocrites who has controdicted themselves and should stay out of the woman business. There are too many babies being born that make this usa overpopulated to the point we are like rats in crowded livable places.

Do not think for one moment we will not fight on this, women should not be force to use coat hangers and also do not think that all our freedom is being taken from us. In the end after Bush get done with his term we will have a burden of rules that can force us to live like cattle to the rules of government. Welcome to Amerika twice times over.

It should be that men should carry the babies in their stomach, believe me, they would wish abortion to be kept legal.

Bush needs to resign and all his nomination null and void.

Since the taking of Justice Souter's property is primarily rooted as a political protest and not an economic taking, I am all for it and I hope they succeed. And I will take time off from work to come up to the Northeast to watch the bulldozers roll. Have no doubt that I am adamantly opposed to eminent domain unless the purpose is compelling and public "and no, enhancing the tax base does not count" highways, firestations, yes, Wal-Mart, no. And under the reservation that the property owner is compensated not only for the full value of his lost property, but also for all related expenses, such as moving expenses.

BTW, libertarians and states rights took a severe hit yesterday, in the decision of Central Virginia Community College vs. Katz. Go to www.supremecourtus.gov and follow the appropriate links to the full decision. I would recommend reading the syllabus, and also reading at least part of Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion. This decision by the Court is a major blow against state sovereign immunity and should be considered as an extremely significant development and another expansion of the federal government.

I support Justice Thomas's dissent in this opinion and I hope that with Justice Alito's arrival on the Court, the decision may soon be reversed. O'Conner voted with the majority, I would strongly expect that Alito would take the opposite stance. Since O'Connor was the deciding vote in this case, Alito's vote can reverse this precedent.

Just for info,

Steven's delivered the opinion, concurred in by O'Conner, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg.

Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, concurred in by Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy.

If it does get overturned, we will vote it to get it turned back. Believe me next election all pro-choice will be voted in.

"Roe V Wade should not be overturned,"

Whether you're a pro-choice or pro-life libertarian, I just can see how you can support Roe since it totally violated the 10th Amendment.

Should the woman be force to have the child, we will make sure you men pay through the noses a big fat chunk of your paycheck.

So what else is new nameless?

We have already have had this totally useless abortion discussion once.

The religious wacko's versus the femi-nazi's. Nobody's mind will actually be changed but a lot of useless hot air will be released in the process. How about free beer for everybody and just ignore this whole pointless topic??? Okay.

Instead, how about, while drinking that beer, you do something much more productive, such as composing a speech, to be delivered to your city council or county commission at its next meeting, detailing your opposition to eminent domain takings. I think a much more productive use of time. I, myself, have already spoken at my city council about the topic, how about some help from my fellow LP'ers.

Nameless -

Men already pay through the nose (in the form of alimony and child support) thanks to the divorce and family court systems (which are stacked in favor of women).

In addition, the f*ckin' ex-wives almost always keep the ex-husbands from seeing their children and often falsely accuse the ex-husbands of being an adulterer, a neglectful parent, an abusive parent, an abusive husband, a pedophile, a lousy provider, etc.

The vast majority of the time, these accusations are blatantly false. Yet the battle axes are believed by the judges since the judges don't have the backbone to judge along legal lines for fear of being tarred, feathered, emasculated (if you're a male judge), castrated (if you're a male judge), or killed by the radical feminists.

Sorry nameless, Tommy's right.

I'm pro choice up untill the three month payment, but that's neither here or there for this blog. Bugger about eminent domain, or the lovely hotel. Not dead fetuses, please. ^.^

Fortunately, the Lost Liberty Hotel is already illegal in N.H. N.H. R.S.A.s already prohibit eminent domain for private use such as this.

Mr. Clements wouldn't listen to us when we tried to tell him that the plan we had put together, which was legal, was better for the fight.

Oh well, I guess Clements, or anyone else for that matter who is not from NH, must know our laws better than we do...

Jim C. Perry
LPNH

Well then I guess you better stick to being pro-choice then. As far as the ex wives and husbands divorce situation that is another story and too long to right now.

From what I understand if the lost liberty hotel collect enough signature from the people over in NH that agrees with this project, they said it can go through.

I like to see it be the Lost Liberty Hotel new white house so to speak.

http://unitedamericancommittee.org/

this is very important.

Nameless, I don't know whether you're some kind of savant genius who's mind is just too ferocious to stay on topic, or just another crazy adrift on this wide strange internet. Either way, I love ya man. You're always so.......you.

Moving on, I live in Missouri. Our state is pretty rediculous about its use of eminant domain. It's the DOT for the most part. You'd be surprised how many 4 lane highways it takes to get from some one horse town to Farmer Bob's corn field. As someone who's seen highways curve around land owned by the rich (most notably the Laurie's, our local wal-mart heirs) and instead take detours through small non-corporate family farms, I'm glad to see some people are fighting for the ability of land owners to protect their property from state interference, and not get a shoddy price for their land if it's taken. I'm sick of watching highways run over small, sustainable, environmentally friendly family agriculture, and I'm sick of watching the state pave over all of the beautiful, natural grasslands and forests that make our state worth living in. In Missouri, we're obsessed with urban sprawl and unchecked outward development, and the state is encouraging it. The state would rather see our cities grow outward into a sprawling mess than increase urban densities and foster more responsible land use over a smaller area. Anyway, if I see one more bowhunting spot bulldozed for no real reason other than an attempt by city governments to expand their tax bases through thinly justified annexation, I'm going to have a conniption fit, because it happens all the time, but I can't seem to remember the last time a Wal-Mart or a strip mall was torn out to build a highway, and I can't recall a single instance where a sprawling corporate farming operation was forced to uproot for development. The LP is the only political party that recognizes how easily eminant domain is abused under our present system, and that makes me proud to call myself a member. That's my 2 cents.

Easier said, but yes some land owners do get a crappy price for their land. For Example: if your force out of your home in California, the price you paid for your home and the taxes you pay are cheaper then if your forced out. If you are force out the developers will pay what they claim as they see fit whether you like it or not, just as the Kelso vs London, who say that guy own money for rent and they only want to pay from when this who situation started so that man ends up with little if nothing in the end.

If you are forced out of your home, not only the price is higher to buy another home in the area, but if you are on a fix income you are also paying a lot more in taxes as well, so in reality the compensation is full of it.

I agree with you I am sick of developers ruining the Forrest, grassland and etc. But we also have to many people here now, and in reality only so much access livable land. I use to enjoy driving by seeing cows and orange groves on hills and some small mountains. Now I see ugly cookie cutters same style homes in a row, jailed gated communittee with busy nobodies. Pay not only taxes to the government, but also your force to pay association dues. So you have eminent domain, association dues and government taxes.

I also hate the high rises, Lord only knows, reminds me of the TOWER of BABEL or the TOWERING INFERNO, guess you can throw away the key and lock us all in there.

PS, I might be a savant genius.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/?p=132

I am jumping up and down steamming mad.
Eminent domain on a church for another stupid mall. Yes get rid of the house of G-d for a stupid ugly mall.

http://castlecoalition.org/

Eminent domain information throughout.

LIBERTARIANS AND OTHER ALTERNATIVE PARTIES, UNITE AND APPLY EMINENT DOMAIN ON ALL OF THE POLITICIANS.

First,

It takes two to have a child, and both should "pay through the nose". They are , after all, your children, not mine. What is sad is the fact that people who carefully avoided conception pay a higher tax burden than those who irresponsibly procreated, without intent or means to support.

---

I am curious to see if anyone who posts on this boards wills to attempt a justification of the concept:
a natural right to own property,
using only the text of the US Constitution.

I believe in a right to possess real property, but I believe it is only an "implied right" in the Constitution; something many conservatives are loath to admit. If it is only implied, and so many hold it to be an inviolate right, then Douglas was right with his analysis of a penumbra of rights which emanate from the bill of rights, and there is a right to privacy, which he posited in his majority decision, Griswold v Connecticut.

any takers? not looking to flame, only discourse.

So lame, there are those who are responsible and use conception and depending on the situation doesn't work. For example a friend of mine who is diabete use birth control and it didn't work. Among other stories to many to go into. Again I stress this is not anyone business what a woman does with her body. You people just worry about those that are here and those men being killed off who have families at home. You do not have a G-d given right to dictate. It is already bad enough we have a dictator in place now.

Eminent domain, there are a lot of homes being taken.
Privacy rights taken, justification, oh it's for our own protection.
Property taxes to high.
Sick people who do need help but are being refused such explained on another post here.

Shall I keep going?

BiPolarPolity:

The Constitution, or any other document for that matter, grants no rights whatsoever. It merely protects such rights. The right to life, liberty and property are natural and can never be restricted. All other rights are simply logical extensions of those three primal rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments only exist to secure rights and also state that such rights transcend government.

In any event, Amendment nine clearly states that ALL rights are retained by the people. Even if it did not, it would matter not, since as I previously stated, all rights transcend government.

> Mark B.
>The Constitution, or any other document for that matter, grants no rights whatsoever.

-- -- -- --

I disagree:

The US Constitution clearly defines many rights. Here are a few examples.

Amendment 1
*right freely exercise religion without government interference
*right to freedom of speech
*right to freedom of the press
*right to peaceful public group protsts and petitions intended to seek redress from the government for grieviences

Amendment 2
*right to keep and bear Arms

Amendment 3
*peacetime right to be free from housing sodiers, and an inviolate right to be free from housing soldiers in a manner not described in legislation

Amendment 4
*an absolute right for persons' houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
--reasonable searches must be precluded by a warrant supported by probable cause and testimony given under oath, which identifies and limits the places which may lawfully be searched.

Amendment 5
*a right, which can be excepted only in cases arising in the military when in actual service in time of War or public danger, to not be detained by the government without a public indictment
*an absolute right to:
**freedom from double jeopardy for the same offense
**freedom from giving testimony against oneself
**due process of law before the state can take life liberty and/or property
**just compensation for private land taken for the public's use

Amendment 6
*due process of law minimally includes:
**right to a speedy and public trial
**right to an impartial jury deciding guilt
**right to the government's public presentment of the nature and cause of the accusation
**right to cross examine accusers while they are under oath
**right to impeach any and all evidence used in prosecution
**right to obtaining witnesses and evidence for defense
**right to competen and dedicated counsel to aid in defense

-----

The right to private property ownership is only implied, and nowhere is it defined as absolute. Instead, a right to just compesation for property taken by government actios is the inviolate right, which implies a right to own property.

I don't like eminent domain, but it is a specious and hypocritical argument when advanced by persons who defend Bush's stripping of the natural rights to habeas corpus and due process of law from anyone he deems to be an "illegal combatant", because it is in the fifth amendment that the due process clause limiting the state's ability to take life limb and/or property is grounded. Property rights and rights of accused are inseparable from one another. The government may no legitimately sever them.

as addendum, I agree that the constitution does not "grant" rights. Rights are pre-existent to the constitution. The constitution limits rightful government incursions into natural rights.

BiPolarPolity:

I think our differences are merely semantical, but they are very important semantics indeed.

I said the Constitution "grants" no rights. In your reply you say the Constitution "defines" many rights. Both of us are correct.

It indeed is impossible for the Constitution or any government to "grant" a right. Rights naturally exist and are possessed by all humans. They cannot be granted by a document or by a government because they are already possessed by all humans.

The Constitution indeed "defines" rights, specifically singling out certain rights for particular protection by and from the Federal Government, but at the same time stating that the rights not enumerated "defined" are also protected.

Government's ONLY legitimate function is to protect rights and to prevent force and fraud from being perpertrated. It exists to protect and enforce rights, but it cannot grant them because they already exist. In fact, it is greatly fortunate that government's do NOT grant rights, because if government's granted them, government's could by defination take them away. Government's cannot take away what they do not grant.

I just noted your addendum, so it looks for the most part like we are in agreement.

> I just noted your addendum, so it looks for the most part like we are in agreement.
> Posted by: Mark B.

----

I am, for the most part, Libertarian in Political point of view. Generally, my exceptions to the LP Party has to do with the public corporation as a "person" in jurisprudence. I consider this idea to be an antilibertarian obscenity.

What I was trying to state here really belongs on conservative boards, and I have posted the same general thrust on a few of them, but have never been satisfied with the responses.

Generally, Conservatives claim some sort of "original intent" philosophy regarding executive and legislative oversight by the Federal Judiciary. They claim that court decisions that they disagree with are "judge-made law", which is unsupported by the text of the constitution. This is their stated reason for opposing a right to privacy.

Contemporary conservatives attempting to push the right to owership of property into ascendency are themselves advocating substantive rights, since there is no specific right to own private property mentioned in the conststitution.

The word "property" occurs 4 times in the US Constitution:

Article IV; Section 3; Clause 2 - refers to property possessed by Federal Government.

The Fifth Amendment mentions property twice, but it refers to the government's taking of property, either in a court decision, or for public purposes. Before the government can take property, it must follow due process of law, and in eminent domain cases, it must compensate owners fairly for the taking.

The 14th amendment; Section 1 - specifically binds individual states to the fifth amendment's due process clause in their actions.

None of these cases mention anything whatsoever about a right to own property. It is only implied by the restraints placed upon government to take without cause and/or compensation.

Why would conservatives ground their dissent against the right to privacy in the text and original intent of the Constitution, then claim a substantive right to private property ownership exists?

Why do contemporary conservatives disparage the plain text meaning of the fifth amendment's first two words: NO PERSON, claiming that this only refers to American citizens that the president has not secretly defined as "illegal combatant"?

I mention the fifth, since that is generally where the implied right to property is grounded as constitutionally sound. The 14th amendment comes closer to defining a natural right to property ownership in its bar against individual state actions, but it also states that this restriction is for "ANY PERSON", not just citizens.

Contemporary American Conservatism continues its never-ending plunge into the depths of moral relativism, all the while claiming itself to be the pure side of the political bipolarity. Its adherents deserve to be verbally flogged for this.

The problem lies in the 14th Amendment definition of what a Citizen is. To restore your soverign rights, it is necessary to distance yourself from this definition.