Posted on 12/26/2005 1:13:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
Eminent domain opponents are planning a rally in Weare Jan. 21-22 to gather signatures for a petition aimed at seizing the property of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter.
Dates for the rally were recently announced on the FoxNews television program, "Hannity & Colmes," by Logan Clements, a California activist who's been outspoken against eminent domain since the Supreme Court's decision last summer in the Kelo vs. New London case.
In that case, Souter helped form the 5-4 majority, backing the rights of a Connecticut town to seize private property in favor of a private development if greater economic benefits to the community could be created.
"It only needs 25 (signatures) for the ballot, but we want to get as many as possible to show our outrage over the Kelo decision," Clements said during the Thursday, Dec. 15, television appearance.
With guidance from lawyers, a local group of eminent domain opponents – the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights – recently drafted the petition, which they hope will make the March ballot.
If adopted, the petition would create two trust funds – one designated for anticipated legal expenses, and the other for money to pay Souter for the fair market value of his Cilley Road property.
Keith Lacasse, a founding member of the local committee formed this summer, described the petition as a "non-binding" referendum, and said the board of selectmen would have a final vote regarding the seizure of Souter's property.
The Weare Board of Selectmen, who've been misidentified in numerous national media outlets as the "town council" over the past few months, have spoken out publicly against the seizure of any Weare property through eminent domain.
Another founding member of the natural rights committee, Joshua Solomon, has announced he plans to run to fill one of the two board seats up for election in March.
"By summarily dismissing the project prior to any formal proposal, the Selectmen are pledging to uphold the personal property rights of all of its citizens and refusing to abuse the power of eminent domain," Solomon wrote in a campaign announcement. "While this is a noble position, (and exactly the position I hope every single city, town, state, and national governing body would take), the board can not give any guarantee that this position will remain unchanged."
But Lacasse, one of the rights committee's seven-member board of directors, said he hopes the local movement will send a strong message to legislators both on a local and national level.
"I haven't actually met anybody who agrees with the court's decision," he said. "We can't wait until it's our own homes that are up for grabs."
They're just trying to make a point. I hope they do.
Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...
various FR links & stories | 03-03-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1354913/posts
Too bad this irony has escaped the mainstream media.
The only thing standing between Souter's house and the wrecking ball are ethical councilmen who reject the use of eminent domain. Nice for Souter that he own property in a town where he doesn't need the proection of the US Consitution.
These guys would have been better off trying to take his condo in DC. There is a lot of reconstruction in that city, and a very liberal council that would have no ethical qualms about confiscating private property.
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.