The first sentence - –
Will you continue to back Bush when the government comes to take your home to line the pockets of the energy industry?
Oh, all right, sigh …
Contradiction #1: Being interested enough in the thread topic to post to it repeatedly, but not interested enough to familiarize yourself with the basic facts of the most prominent recent questionable example of it. This reluctance to look into facts that may cause you discomfort may be explained in part by:
Contradiction #2: Acknowledging that criticism of said example was fair, while claiming that anyone (else) actually making such criticism is doing no more than generic knee-jerk bashing.
You seem like a basically intelligent young person, so I know you’re capable of better than that. And so, since you ask, is N2K, whose nonobjectivity is even more blatant than yours (although admitted in previous posts) and equally unhelpful.
Beyond that, there doesn’t seem to be much debate that ED is a tool that is useful and sometimes necessary, although other countries can sometimes limp along without it (e.g. Japan - ever wonder why Tokyo Narita Airport has only 1 runway?).
The only debate here seems to be over individual cases - and it’s worth pointing out that publicly-owned utility companies and their infrastructures aren’t an alien concept even in the US. If the venerated free-market system is incapable of dealing with a problem that affects everyone there so fundamentally, as would seem to be the case in California, it’s hard to make the case that the situation should be allowed to continue. Oops, excuse me, John Bredin already said all that, and better.
Elvis,
[li]I have not citicized ANYONE in this thread for talking about the stadium.[/li]
[li]With a little careful reading, I am sure that you will notice the OP never even mentioned a staduim.[/li]
[li]My comments about ranting have been fairly obviously directed at the OP.[/li]
[li]Only someone who hates Bush as much as you would consider the stadium deal "the most prominent recent questionable example of " emminent domain.[/li]
[li]Talking about emminent domain and then listing off a list of Bush examples is like…[/li]
…discussing sexual harrassment and then discussing Clinton…
…oorrr…
…discussing the impact of lies, and then focusing on Gore.
In each case, the bottom line is that you have an obvious agenda motivating your posts.
Yes in a way this is a rant. I have nothing really against business itself. But Eminent Domain, tort laws and even free market agreements should be written and carried out in the most democratic of ways. (for lack of a better way of putting it) When government and business act in concert to seize property there is a large potential for abuse.
My rant is that the current administration very clearly to me is more than willing to partnership with business. That in itself is not always a bad thing as long as we are certain that their collaboration is working for the public good. Not just the good of a few citizens, for the majority of the public. Many people are fine with new roads, public works, power plants, etc. as long as you don’t build them in their back yards. That’s why if this policy is to be used again for the public good then we should be certain that it is being applied when necessary and with the least degree of harm. It doesn’t appear that this is always the case.
I’m sorry if some of you do not like my views concerning this new president and the policies of his party. I just happen to disagree that favoring business over the public trust is a way to run our government. Businesses have historically not shown that they have anything in mind but profits. Some of them are the equivalent of “evil”. (Many people will point to the tobacco industry as a good example.) The government belongs to us. It should be designed to provide for the public good. If that includes helping businesses then fine. But our government should never act in a manner that allows business to prevail over the common good. It should not act in concert with business to advance only a few and trample on the economic and personal rights of others.
I fear that this policy, ED, along with many of the other policy proposals of this new administration will not turn out to benefit the public good.
Needs2know
Needs2know wrote:
You say this as though it’s a bad thing.
Yes Tracer, it is a bad thing when they put profit above the health and safety of their workers. Or when they pollute the environment with no oversight, then leave their mess behind. Yes, businesses that cheat the government, and the people for profit is a bad thing. It is a terrible shame but often it is necessary for the people, through our government, to regulate the profit seeking abilities of business.
Must people like you continue to ask inane questions such as this? Do you not enjoy the efforts of thousands of brave workers from previous generations that stood up to businesses and forced them to invest in more than their greed. You are simply naieve to believe that if we did not have laws to protect people and the environment that businesses would automatically govern themselves. Who are you anyway, CEO of Monsanto, Haliburton Oil, Bristo Myers Squib? Stand to make a half dozen million dollars this year for exaggerating the benefits of your product, drilling in a National forrest, or overcharging dying people for medicine? Maybe you’re Bill Gates and just want to make sure that you have a monopoly on the entire software industry, not just the operating system. Gee, I guess you’re such a skilled worker that if your company decides to move to Mexico you’ll still have a job, or maybe you’ll be willing to make 60 cents an hour instead. Or maybe your kid won’t get luekemia from the crap in the water the nearby chemical company leaks. Sorry I didn’t realize you were immune from the harm that businesses can do the public when they simply don’t care. Gee, it would be nice if you’d at least have a little empathy for your neighbor. Or is that some evil “socialist” concept?
Needs2know
Hey Tracer,
Can I borrow some money?
[/quote]
From the OP:
This is the agenda of the conservative party that claims government should be less intrusive.
[/quote]
The OP then lists as examples of intrusiveness the following: eminent domain, incarceration for traffic violations, Tort Reform, ‘Roll-back’ of Roe v. Wade, more stringent bankruptcy laws.
Before we deal with the main theme, let’s look at the list:
-
incarceration for traffic violations - so far as I know, the Republican party doesn’t assert that people should be incarcerated for traffic violations. The Supreme Court case in question simply said that the Fourt Amendment doesn’t preclude arrest in such cases. I know of no Republican politicians who asserted that they now could engage in their life-long dream policy of arresting all speeders.
-
Tort Reform - someone can perhaps explain how making it harder to sue in tort is being ‘intrusive’.
-
Making it harder to declare bankruptcy - again, not quite sure how that is an example of ‘intrusiveness’ on the part of the federal government. Bankruptcy as an option is a governmental creation to begin with; absent the decision of the government to allow it as an option you wouldn’t be able to declare it. When government limits access to a governmentally sponsored program, it’s hard to call it an example of ‘intrusiveness.’
Which leaves us with two things on the list which are part of two areas in which one can legitimately argue that the Republicans are interested in strong-acting federal power: resource production and social legislation.
The trouble with the OP is that is assumes something about the Republican party (and its current President) that isn’t true. For those of you who haven’t paid attention, The Republicans Aren’t For Limited Government. Never have been, probably never will be. That’s why the Libertarians are a separate party. From the time of Lincoln, through the laissez-faire economic party of the roaring 20’s, to the cold-war fighting era of Reagan, the Republican Party has always been in favor of a powerful federal government. This is especially true following the Rooseveltian change in federal-state power accomplished in the 30’s. Today, the only thing Republicans differ with Democrats about is how to USE that power.
Which is NOT to say that Republicans aren’t for smaller government (cut enough programs and you can downsize the government regardless of how powerful it is), nor that they aren’t in favor of limiting its general intrusion into your social life (after all, they are a party that currently asserts that most of your economic and social decisions should be based upon market concerns and not governmental paternalism). But a party that asserts that the federal government should mandate yearly testing of pupils as a condition of federal education grants, that wants to limit the availability of certain social options abhorrent to a minority of the people (e.g. abortion), is hardly a party that is against a powerful federal government.
Which brings us back to eminent domain powers (I, at least, understand that the OP didn’t care one whit about eminent domain as an abstract principle, just the use of it in the specific instance cited). Eminent domain is one of those lovely governmental powers everyone loves to hate, except when it manages to help you. It inherently pits the little guy (property owner) against the monstrous government. It attacks one of our cherished ‘rights’, the ability to own real property without much restriction on that ownership (ignoring the fact property ownership has ALWAYS been highly qualified - hell, less than 800 years ago it didn’t even EXIST in the English system, and every advance in the ability to actually own land has always come with strings attached), etc. Both liberals and conservatives alike will attack the use of eminent domain when it is employed to further efforts with which they disagree (as an example, liberals hating use of it to support corporate efforts, conservatives hating use of it to support furthering social agendas or conservation efforts). But use of the power to aquire right-of-ways for utility pipelines and or transmission lines is quite in keeping with past usage of the power, and hardly that controversial.
I actually misread this thread as “Eminem Domain”, thinking it had something to do with his website.
I shudder to think why I opened it anyway! 
— G. Raven
Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said intrusive. What I actually meant was that “conseratives”, did I say Republican maybe so but I guess we can equate being conservative with being Republican, are for smaller government. Or so they say. But for me that seems like a huge hypocracy in light of all the government intervention they promote regarding our personal, civil and property rights. How is it not a sign of big government when we propose to seize private property. In the best case that should be left up to the state. (And I might add that there are quite a few legislators, some of them Republican, in the Western states that agree.)
We can split hairs on this all day long but big government is about passing legislation that limits an individuals rights. Every bit as much as big government equates to the same old broken recording we hear from conservatives about evironmental protection legislation and entitlement programs being “big government”. How is this ridiculous drug war we’ve been engaged in not “big government”, and traditionally conservatives are all for making it even bigger.
I see tort reform as intrusive and a form of big government. It is a method for the government to deny the rights of citizens to address their grievances in court. Tort reform is not about curtailing “excessive litigation”, it’s about giving business a free reign to fleece and willfully harm the public. If that isn’t intrusive on our rights then I can think of little else that is.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have included the recent ruling by the Supremes on the seat belt case. After all one of the less conservative judges wrote the case, I believe. But if that ruling doesn’t alarm anyone that gives an iota about their own personal freedom then something is wrong. You’re in denial. Denial of the notion that something similar couldn’t happen to you.
Here’s an interesting view point on the notion of big government. Of course it isn’t a “conservative” view point.
http://www.wage-slave.org/20000831.smallgov.html
Needs2know
Perhaps I used the wrong word when I said intrusive. What I actually meant was that “conseratives”, did I say Republican maybe so but I guess we can equate being conservative with being Republican, are for smaller government. Or so they say. But for me that seems like a huge hypocracy in light of all the government intervention they promote regarding our personal, civil and property rights. How is it not a sign of big government when we propose to seize private property. In the best case that should be left up to the state. (And I might add that there are quite a few legislators, some of them Republican, in the Western states that agree.)
We can split hairs on this all day long but big government is about passing legislation that limits an individuals rights. Every bit as much as big government equates to the same old broken recording we hear from conservatives about evironmental protection legislation and entitlement programs being “big government”. How is this ridiculous drug war we’ve been engaged in not “big government”, and traditionally conservatives are all for making it even bigger.
I see tort reform as intrusive and a form of big government. It is a method for the government to deny the rights of citizens to address their grievances in court. Tort reform is not about curtailing “excessive litigation”, it’s about giving business a free reign to fleece and willfully harm the public. If that isn’t intrusive on our rights then I can think of little else that is.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have included the recent ruling by the Supremes on the seat belt case. After all one of the less conservative judges wrote the case, I believe. But if that ruling doesn’t alarm anyone that gives an iota about their own personal freedom then something is wrong. You’re in denial. Denial of the notion that something similar couldn’t happen to you.
Here’s an interesting view point on the notion of big government. Of course it isn’t a “conservative” view point.
http://www.wage-slave.org/20000831.smallgov.html
Needs2know
Needs2know wrote:
Yep, I have one more inane question:
Since you’re implying that the profit motive is a “bad” motive, what are your feelings on the theory of consumer surplus?
technical question: in U.S. law, what does the expression “eminent domain” mean? is it the power of the legislature to expropriate property on compensation, or does it have a more sweeping meaning than that?
From Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition:
eminent domain. The inherent power of a governmental entity to take privately owned property, esp. land, and convert it to public use, subject to reasonable compensation for the taking.
Black’s Law Dictionary then includes an excerp from Nowak & Rotunda’s Constitutional Law, which says in part:
“The just compensation clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution was built upon this concept of a moral obligation to pay for governmental interference with private property… No provision for the power of eminent domain appears in the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has said that the power of eminent domain is an incident of federal sovereignty and an ‘offspring of political necessity.’ The Court has also noted that the fifth amendment’s limitation on taking private property is a tacit recognition that the power to take private property exists.”
The relevant portion of the 5th Amendment is this:
“… Nor shall private Property be taken for public Use, without just Compensation.”
Ignoring conveniently the fact you have no inherent right to sue a company in tort, nor an inherent right to establish the existence and be compensated for general damages (to say nothing of punitive damages, strict liability, etc.). To the extent that a government allows the people to address their greivances through courts, it ‘intrudes’ on the right of the corporate ‘person’ to be free from interference; to the extent that a government, either through its judicial or legislative branches authorizes added causes of action or added remedies, it acts as a ‘big’ government.
This is not to say that ‘tort’ reform is a good or bad thing; I personally prefer a healthy balance between the legal rights of consumers and the legal rights of manufacturers, just as I prefer a healthy balance between landowners and renters, and among individual people. But the ‘conservative’ (meaning less paternalistic, less active governmental) approach to tort is to leave it limited in scope.
As for the ruling regarding the woman whose kids weren’t in seat belts, it is pretty clear you didn’t understand the ruling at all. The Court did NOT endorse arresting the woman; indeed the opinion notes “In her case, the physical incidents of arrest were merely gratuitous humiliations imposed by a police officer who was (at best) exercising extremely poor judgment. Atwater’s claim to live free of pointless indignity and confinement clearly outweighs anything the City can raise against it specific to her case.” But, as the majority noted, neither the decisions of the Court to date, nor the history of the Fourth Amendment made such an arrest a violation of the Amendment, because there is no exception to the general rule that an arrest may accompany a witnessed violation of the law for violations that have some lesser status. And while Justice O’Connor (and the dissenters) would have been willing to establish such an exception to allow Ms. Atwater some relief in her Section 1983 suit against the City of Lago Vista, the majority refused to create an exception that would be difficult to administer simply to remedy the abusive situation Ms. Atwater experienced.
In viewing this case, we have to understand two things we tend to forget: the Constitution is not meant to remedy everything wrong that can be done by a government (sometimes we have to remedy it in other ways), and the facts of the individual case cannot sway us to create general rules of law that will cause significant trouble in the future. Justice O’Connor is constantly failing to keep this latter proposition in mind; it is her greatest failing and was the lynchpin of her decision to refuse to allow Florida to finish counting the ballots, possibly denying Mr. Gore the White House. But the case does NOT stand for the proposition that it is a correct thing for government to do to abuse its citizens.
I’ll ignore the whole red herring that somehow the Republicans are generally more in favor of using eminent domain for questionable purposes, and comment on the Atwater case.
This is what the Supreme Court said exactly. Mostly it seems to have been decided on the grounds of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Common law at the time of the writing of the Fourth Ammendment did not prohibit similar occurences, so it stands to reason that the Fourth Ammendment was not written to prohibit them.
Of course, this argument could easily be attacked on other grounds, such as that what might have been accepted out of necessity in 18th century England is no longer applicable. However, to state as a rule that the Fourth Ammendment means something other than what its framers intended is not something that this Court is going to do. Scalia (and thus of course Thomas) and Rehnquist are firm believers in the original intent doctrine, and as Atwater tried arguing along those lines as well, it seemed an appropriate approach to the question.
The Court, and certainly not conservatives as a whole, did not say that such events are right, just that they are not prohibited by the Constitution.
Incidentally, if the OP was trying to show that the Bush administration is caving in to corporate interests, how did this example even make it in there? There is no corporate interest in jailing people who don’t wear their seatbelts. My vote goes for generic Bush rant. Which seems to be Needs’s forte (not that she has any particular skill at it).
waterj2 wrote:
Not to defend Needs2know’s rambling, but there is a potential corporate interest in imposing harsh penalties for non-seatbelt wearers. Namely, the insurance companies would benefit from such a law, in that fewer people would refuse to wear their seat belts, thereby reducing the number of accident-related injuries that they’d have to pony up the dough for.
It could be similarly argued that the medical insurance companies have a stake in banning smoking, for example.
Corporations are not people and I can give you many examples that they are in fact not, (they lack a sense of morality or conscience for one) and why they should not be given the same rights as people under our form of government. Idoits that defend the right of corporate “personhood” must be living quite comfortably in the notion that they will never be harmed through willfullness or negligence by a person or a corporation. You live everyday in relative comfort with clean water, air, and decent food to eat because of a citizens right to sue. Without such a right the Clean Water Act and many other such legislation would never have been enforced. You take so much for granted. Continue to wear blinders if it pleases you. We are losing our rights as citizens of a democracy to govern ourselves. Capitalism and democracy are not interchangeable. They do not mean the same thing. Capitalism without democracy is nothing more than corporate fascism.
On and BTW…Eminent Domain is not necessarily a conservative concept. It’s a Bush/Cheney concept that has brought them criticisim from some of their own Republican senators in the West. I do hope they keep up with their Machiavellian campain perhaps their former supporters will have the balls to eat a little crow and admit they made a mistake when they cast their lot with this group of corporate whores.
Needs2know
Corporations are not people and I can give you many examples that they are in fact not, (they lack a sense of morality or conscience for one) and why they should not be given the same rights as people under our form of government. Idoits that defend the right of corporate “personhood” must be living quite comfortably in the notion that they will never be harmed through willfullness or negligence by a person or a corporation. You live everyday in relative comfort with clean water, air, and decent food to eat because of a citizens right to sue. Without such a right the Clean Water Act and many other such legislation would never have been enforced. You take so much for granted. Continue to wear blinders if it pleases you. We are losing our rights as citizens of a democracy to govern ourselves. Capitalism and democracy are not interchangeable. They do not mean the same thing. Capitalism without democracy is nothing more than corporate fascism.
On and BTW…Eminent Domain is not necessarily a conservative concept. It’s a Bush/Cheney concept that has brought them criticism from some of their own Republican senators in the West. I do hope they keep up with their Machiavellian campain perhaps evenutally their former supporters will have the balls to eat a little crow and admit they made a mistake when they cast their lot with this pack of corporate whores.
Needs2know
Needs2know wrote:
Whether you like it or not, corporations of all sizes are considered to be “legal persons” under the laws of every state in the U.S… (This was mostly done to work within the old laws which required the names of all the persons who owned a piece of property to appear on the title deed. It streamlines many other laws set up around the question of “who” did thus-and-such and “who” is responsible for so-and-so.)
Huh? How is my treating a corporation as a “person” the same as believing that a person or a corporation (your words) will never harm me? Persons harm other persons through willfulness or negligence all the time, and they are sued for it.
We live everyday in relative comfort with clean water, air, and decent food to eat because we’re willing to pay for those things. Particularly the food and water. Take away the economic incentive – with or without the right to sue – and you can say goodbye to all those comforts you so enjoy.
I know you are, but what am I?
Then why was Eminent Domain pushed so strongly by Democrat Calfornia governor Gray Davis, and by extreme liberal protestors in the Berkeley area, over California’s recent electic power crisis?