Logan Darrow Clements
Justice David Souter
Posted on 06/30/2005 5:54:20 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
|
|
Logan Darrow Clements, the man looking to oust Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his New Hampshire home following last week's ruling on eminent domain, says he's willing to turn over his effort to professional developers.
"To make this project more viable," he said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, "to let you know that it's not a prank, that it's a real project that's gonna go forward, I want to hand this project off to an actual hotel-development company that has actually built hotels in the past, and I'll simply act as the spokesperson."
His statement comes as the town of Weare, N.H., has reportedly been inundated with calls in support of the proposal since WND first publicized the story.
"There are so many people who have come out of the woodwork to support me," Clements said. "Government has just gotten far too big and far too powerful. ... We're trying to make a larger point that we're losing freedom so fast in America that we have to stop what we're doing and take a stand and fight it."
|
|
Monday, Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of Weare, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.
"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," Meany told the Associated Press. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."
Clements' idea to seize Justice Souter's property and build "The Lost Liberty Hotel" came after the 5-4 ruling last Thursday.
The Kelo v. City of New London decision allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.
When asked by television host Rich Lowry, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, why he didn't go after Justice John Paul Stevens' abode as well, Clements responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, and so we can certainly have other locations."
Previous stories:
Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?
Property battle heads to states
High court's property decision stirs anger
Court rules cities can seize homes
Justice David Souter
I'm actually beginning to think this guy is for real.
I hope he goes forward too- does he have a web site? Looking for investors?
i'd like to see him fight for it all the way to the supreme court
Whatever makes Souter's life a little more miserable - more miserable than simply being a sour liberal, that is - is ok by me.
He has really brilliant. Souter is a plantation politician removed from the reality of his misguided authority. Darrow is putting right where it painfully belongs. Swiftly and legally.
hehehehe.... irony is ironic sometimes, ya know?
We should also go after kennedy, poppy bush and darth bader ginsburg too.
bttt
If he does build it, I know where I will be staying the next time I am in New Hampshire!
I really gotta give this guy credit. I'd have loved to been a fly-on-the-wall when Souter was informed of the plan.
Connecticut has legislation on the books that says that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development project is a “public use” and in the “public interest.” New Hampshire has no such law. There has never been a case of private property condemned under eminent domain for private use in the state's history. Souter's property will not be the first one.
Or maybe it will...
It won't.
So if Souter takes this to court, and argues all the way to the Supreme Court he would have to step aside as a conflict of interest. I wonder what the other eight would vote? 4-4 decision? Now that would be a first. Who breaks the tie?
If a Republican, I hope when the case is accepted by the Chief Justice he allows (like Congress considers unrelated bills in a single package) a Roe v Wade like rider so the split decision can be determined by an elected Republican official...
O OK, just dreaming...but you have to admit, this country has entered into Alice and Wonderland when it comes to making law and interpreting it. We are not really living in a land ruled by law (even though we are taught that we are and the perception is that we are). Instead it is obvious that it has become a land ruled by 5 people sitting on the Supreme Court. All those we elect are just puppets of whatever these five rule. The legislative and executive branches are only as powerful as the judiciary will allow them to be.
Justice is fair compensation for a committed wrong.
An eye for an eye...
If this guy knew New Hampshire he would forget the "hotel" crap and look into a B & B. Renovate the old Souter homestead, add a few rooms and go upscale. There is a big market for B&B's in New England.
They could name it "The Eminent Domain" to reflect some of the history of the historic inn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.