Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Propose Taking Breyer's Land
AP ^ | 07/29/05 | ANNE SAUNDERS

Posted on 07/29/2005 12:23:48 PM PDT by nypokerface

PLAINFIELD, N.H. - Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on land taking have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state.

Organizers are trying to collect enough signatures to go before the town next spring to ask to use Justice Stephen G. Breyer's 167-acre Plainfield property for a "Constitution Park" with stone monuments to commemorate the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions.

"In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman.

The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice David Souter's home. Souter's property is also the focus of a proposal by a California man who suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a "Lost Liberty Hotel."

The efforts are meant in protest of the high court's June ruling that let a Connecticut city take land by eminent domain and turn it over to a private developer. Breyer and Souter supported the decision.

Through a spokesman, Breyer declined to comment on the matter Friday. Souter has also declined comment.

Plainfield Town Administrator Steve Halleran said he didn't expect Plainfield voters to support the Breyer effort, but Logan Darrow Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's gotten support from thousands of people across the country for his Souter plan, and the town clerk in Weare said she had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund.

The Supreme Court's 5-4 court ruling lets officials in New London, Conn., take older homes along the city's waterfront for a private developer who plans to build offices, a hotel and convention center.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: breyer; constitutionpark; eminentdomain; kelo; stephenbreyer

1 posted on 07/29/2005 12:23:49 PM PDT by nypokerface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

Thanks for posting. This made my day!


2 posted on 07/29/2005 12:25:17 PM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

YES!!!!!!!!!!!


3 posted on 07/29/2005 12:25:52 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (islamofascism, like socialism must be eradicated from the face of this earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

Great idea! If these SOCIALIST ACTIVISTS are so keen on a socialist America, let us start by confiscating his land and turning it into a monument to what this country IS REALLY ABOUT. A free republic and people who are free, whose property is PROTECTED by its Constitution, AND PROTECTED AGAINST AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT!!!!


4 posted on 07/29/2005 12:30:04 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface
Nice spoken gesture, but the day the Libertarians actually do anything, other than joining the Greens to force a recount of the Ohio votes, will be the day that I will take them seriously.
5 posted on 07/29/2005 12:31:31 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

I like this, but I wish they'd structure this in a way that would reflect the idiocy of the ruling: a proposal of something that will generate more tax revenue through the use of Breyer's land as they are doing with Souter's.


6 posted on 07/29/2005 12:34:16 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: wolf24

I agree, the seizure of Breyer's property seems ill conceived, while the Souter one is just briliant. One reflects the injustice of the ruling, the other does not.


8 posted on 07/29/2005 12:38:18 PM PDT by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

Sounds like a good idea.


9 posted on 07/29/2005 12:42:37 PM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

bump for later read


10 posted on 07/29/2005 12:43:53 PM PDT by SE Mom (God Bless those who serve)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

And on the monument in the center of the park there should be a giant obelisk with the 4th amendment on it at eye level for easy reading:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


11 posted on 07/29/2005 12:53:31 PM PDT by Lone Red Ranger (What's right is more important than who's right. Glad we're Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

LOL!


12 posted on 07/29/2005 12:57:30 PM PDT by talleyman (Sharks, terrorists & criminals - if we'll just be nice to them, they'll leave us alone...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

What about the other three? Of the 5 Justices apart of this ruling, there has to be at least one local government where these 5 live that is conservative and willing to prove a point.


13 posted on 07/29/2005 12:58:08 PM PDT by Honcho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lone Red Ranger

Should this effort fail, I would suggest that we offer to do a trade with the darling of the American left, Fidel Castro.

Here's the offer - in exchange for the 75+ political prisoners taken, plus the new ones added thanks to the French easing relations with Cuba, the United States will jet over (in posh first class seating) the five Justices who eliminated the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment and all of their clerks. And just before entering the plane, the deportation papers would be served.

Let's see what el Jefe says.


14 posted on 07/29/2005 12:59:43 PM PDT by saveliberty (Liberal= in need of therapy, but would rather ruin lives of those less fortunate to feel good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface
I'm certainly not a Libertarian, and I'm for taking Souter's land as well. It would serve the jerk right, and be a marvelous exhibit demonstrating the lost cause of freedom.

I think the author of this piece is scraping to find some Libertarian quotes so she can marginalize this entire effort, kookifying it by mainstreaming it with the Libertarians.

15 posted on 07/29/2005 1:10:42 PM PDT by Gritty ("Excluding religion from the public sphere results from false dogmas of freedom - Pope Benedict)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: talleyman
Suddenly I feel like ice cream. Mmm...Breyer's... :)


16 posted on 07/29/2005 1:15:23 PM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Many, if not most, Libertarians were angry about that recount.


17 posted on 07/29/2005 1:16:48 PM PDT by jsubstance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio
LMAO !!

A SCOTUS special-blend: Banana JUDGE Chunk

18 posted on 07/29/2005 1:25:06 PM PDT by OnRightOnLeftCoast (Democrats: A firing squad in a circle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

You don't understand, just as Ted Kennedy's kids were never going to be bussed into the inner city in the 70s, Bryer and Souter are never gonna lost their land. It does not work that way. The only people who lose in these situations are the little guys. Like those people in their $75,000 homes in New London.

The system will never allow a Bryer or Souter to be a victim of their own law-making.


19 posted on 07/29/2005 1:28:03 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface
Next out of the lefties on SCOTUS: "It is a hate crime to try to inflict a SCOTUS law on those who pushed it through. Only the peon John Q. Public should be subjected to unconstitutional tyranny.
20 posted on 07/29/2005 2:14:35 PM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

mark


21 posted on 07/29/2005 2:17:17 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

"In the spirit of the ruling, we're recreating the same use of eminent domain," said John Babiarz, the Libertarian Party's state chairman."

First time I agree with what "these" Libertarians are doing. Finally, they are (figuratively) putting the roach clip down and making the effort to walk their talk.


22 posted on 07/29/2005 2:20:28 PM PDT by SunnySide (Ephes2:8 ByGraceYou'veBeenSavedThruFaithAGiftOfGodSoNoOneCanBoast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

Just how is converting a property that pays taxes into a park that doesn't pay taxes fit into the Supreme Court decision? It was supposed to be that you could take peoples property and give it to someone else if the other person would pay more taxes.

Leave it to the Libertarians to get it a$$ backwards.


23 posted on 07/29/2005 4:13:34 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface

There is NOTHING more fundamental to individual liberty than property rights. The ruling by SCOTUS was an abomination. I know this is all talk and in the end Breyer and Souter won't be touched. I know it just as I know that I wish I was wrong.


24 posted on 07/30/2005 2:54:49 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nypokerface
Plainfield Town Administrator Steve Halleran said he didn't expect Plainfield voters to support the Breyer effort, but Logan Darrow Clements, of Los Angeles, said he's gotten support from thousands of people across the country for his Souter plan, and the town clerk in Weare said she had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund.

Oh, so now the VOTERS have to approve a eminent domain project?

25 posted on 08/02/2005 2:19:37 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Unfortunately, or rather, fortunately for the Justices, NH's eminent domain laws are much tighter than Connecticut's, so what is happening in New London would not likely happen here.

While Selectboards and City Councils can eminent domain property here, in Weare the Selectboard has already refused to do so on Souters property, and Weare is a Senate Bill 2 jurisdiction. In Plainfield, the only other option is a ballot warrant article to be voted on at town meeting in the spring.

We are pursuing a more pure 'public use' application with Breyers property to help push the eminent domain limits back to the old time 'bridges and roads' domain where it belongs.

Those wishing to support the effort can join in at http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com


26 posted on 08/03/2005 12:43:33 PM PDT by mlorrey ("If the LP caused the FSP, then Nixon caused the War Powers Act" - Mike Lorrey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson