Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Who Do I See About Investing?. And Reservations?

I heard about this on the radio this morning, a couple of people emailed me, plus a commenter mentioned it, but I think Logan Darrow Clements' idea of taking Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter's New Hampshire home through eminent domain in order to build a hotel is outstanding.

However, Randy Barnett doesn't think the idea is quite as amusing if Clements is serious:
Retaliating against a judge for the good faith exercise of his duty is not only a bad idea, it violates the holding of Kelo itself, for the intent would be to take from A to give to B, in this case to punish A.
What matters intent? How do you prove Clements isn't just trying to take advantage of an excellent finanical opportunity for both himself and the town of Weare? He states his reasoning plainly:
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.
It's all about location, location, location! I don't know about you, but I think any reasonably decent skillful lawyer could successfully argue that, while the hotel could be built on the property of any of the five justices in the majority in Kelo, selecting Souter's home isn't punitive - after all, Souter would receive "just compensation" like any average American in a similar situation. And future "Lost Liberty Hotel" franchises could be opened on the (former) homesites of the other four Justices, plus the homesites of mayors and city-council members who vote in favor of such eminent domain seizures!

Well, maybe "Lost Liberty" convenience stores.

UPDATE, 6/30: Eugene Volokh sees it the same way I do:
Developers' intentions are often not public-regarding; even if they aren't political retaliation, they're often simply private gain, which is perfectly fine. If the developer here persuaded the city that the taking would indeed be economically beneficial ("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"), and the city was genuinely motivated by this public benefit, the developer's motives would, I think, be irrelevant.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.