Ok, before we get this started, please feel free to call me a knee-jerk reactionary, left-wing nutjub, or America-hating commie, even though none of those could be further from the truth. Anyway, down to business:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050615/ts_usatoday/voteonflagdesecrationmaybecliffhanger
Apparently there is nationwide support for the banning of political flag-burning
I'm sure some of you will be pleased about this, the same lot of you who spout "America love it or leave it!" and spit on anti-war protestors. Well, call it a slippery slope, but it seems to me this is just the first step to banning anti-government speech outright.
Next:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
So the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local god damn government can seize your property for the purpose of building a GOD DAMN OFFICE BUILDING. America, land of the free, where the government can confiscate ANYONE's property in the name of progress!
I mean, the government has done some things that have made me mad before, but this pushes it over the line. Sure, some of you might say, "But Warlord, hasn't the government done worse things? Like when they say, suspended rights during WWI? Or interned the Japanese during WWII? Or blah blah blah etc", and to that I'll say no, this is worse. And its not just these two things, but it's a combination of a lot of things lately. Look at the last few decades, and stack these on top of things like the Patriot Act and what else you can think of.
In this last paragraph I'm probably supposed to declare that this is the last straw and I'm moving to Canada, but I'd rather stay here and fight. Because I think it's worth fighting over.
Anyway I'm done, feel free to discuss / debate / flame me. This really is not that great of a post, but that's only because I'm so angry that I can barely type straight.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050615/ts_usatoday/voteonflagdesecrationmaybecliffhanger
Quote:
Next week, the House will vote on the amendment for a seventh time. If history is a guide, it will pass for a seventh time. That's when the spotlight switches to the Senate, where the amendment has always died.
But this time may be different. Amendment supporters say last year's election expanding the Senate Republican majority to 55 has buoyed their hopes for passage. Five freshmen senators - Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana - voted for the amendment as House members and plan to do so again.
They will be joined by at least five Democrats who have co-sponsored the resolution, including Dianne Feinstein of California and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Both are up for re-election next year.
Not all senators have publicly declared their support or opposition.
In 2000, when the Senate last took up the matter, 63 voted for the amendment, four short of a two-thirds majority.
"We're going to have deeper support for this, and the intensity is growing," Thune said Tuesday, which was Flag Day. "There's momentum."
...
Still, "it's important that we venerate the national symbol of our country," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, the amendment's chief sponsor. "Burning, urinating, defecating on the flag - this is not speech. This is offensive conduct."
...
If it is, though, "it is almost a foregone conclusion that the states would ratify" the amendment, says John Vile, a constitutional law expert at Middle Tennessee State University and editor of Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America.
Every state legislature has passed resolutions urging Congress to send them a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. Still, such resolutions aren't binding, and "that doesn't necessarily mean it would pass in the states," says Heather Morton, of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
But this time may be different. Amendment supporters say last year's election expanding the Senate Republican majority to 55 has buoyed their hopes for passage. Five freshmen senators - Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana - voted for the amendment as House members and plan to do so again.
They will be joined by at least five Democrats who have co-sponsored the resolution, including Dianne Feinstein of California and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Both are up for re-election next year.
Not all senators have publicly declared their support or opposition.
In 2000, when the Senate last took up the matter, 63 voted for the amendment, four short of a two-thirds majority.
"We're going to have deeper support for this, and the intensity is growing," Thune said Tuesday, which was Flag Day. "There's momentum."
...
Still, "it's important that we venerate the national symbol of our country," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, the amendment's chief sponsor. "Burning, urinating, defecating on the flag - this is not speech. This is offensive conduct."
...
If it is, though, "it is almost a foregone conclusion that the states would ratify" the amendment, says John Vile, a constitutional law expert at Middle Tennessee State University and editor of Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America.
Every state legislature has passed resolutions urging Congress to send them a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. Still, such resolutions aren't binding, and "that doesn't necessarily mean it would pass in the states," says Heather Morton, of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Apparently there is nationwide support for the banning of political flag-burning
I'm sure some of you will be pleased about this, the same lot of you who spout "America love it or leave it!" and spit on anti-war protestors. Well, call it a slippery slope, but it seems to me this is just the first step to banning anti-government speech outright.
Next:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
Quote:
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use." Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use." Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
So the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local god damn government can seize your property for the purpose of building a GOD DAMN OFFICE BUILDING. America, land of the free, where the government can confiscate ANYONE's property in the name of progress!
I mean, the government has done some things that have made me mad before, but this pushes it over the line. Sure, some of you might say, "But Warlord, hasn't the government done worse things? Like when they say, suspended rights during WWI? Or interned the Japanese during WWII? Or blah blah blah etc", and to that I'll say no, this is worse. And its not just these two things, but it's a combination of a lot of things lately. Look at the last few decades, and stack these on top of things like the Patriot Act and what else you can think of.
In this last paragraph I'm probably supposed to declare that this is the last straw and I'm moving to Canada, but I'd rather stay here and fight. Because I think it's worth fighting over.
Anyway I'm done, feel free to discuss / debate / flame me. This really is not that great of a post, but that's only because I'm so angry that I can barely type straight.
