Fifteen years ago Baldman received a call from Stoop contributor Robbie. "I can't be certain" he said, "but I am pretty sure he is burning in hell right now." I asked him who he was referring too. "William Kunstler" he replied. And that is how I found out Kunstler had died. We both high-fived at the welcomed news.
William Kunstler. If I had to make a list of the worst of the worst, the absolute bottom of the barrel, filthy, subversive, radical anti-American vermin who have lived during my lifetime, William Kunstler would be at the top of that list.
I mention this piece of shit because PBS is showing a documentary on Kunstler -made by his daughters -tonight at 10 pm.
Apparently his daughters are cut from the same filthy cloth. Check out his daughter in this week's New Yorker describing an interview Kunstler gave regarding the Black Panthers:
This piece of footage brought home to us what our father meant when he taught us that all white people are racist,” she said.
Speak for yourself honey.
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Why Giving KSM A Trial Takes Away Your Rights
My Pal Andrew gives an excellent analysis below of why trying that vermin, KSM, in Federal Court would erode the Constitutional Rights of ALL AMERICANS.
Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York Federal Court Will Destroy Your Constitutional Rights:
Deborah Sherman, a “journalist” for the New York Times magazine, recently interviewed a Republican Senator. In response to the Senator's question to Sherman as to why journalist Sherman thought foreign terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) should be tried as criminal defendants and thereby getting all of the Constitutional rights and benefit of a United States citizen, journalist Sherman was happy to say we "should take the moral high ground." Forgetting about the fact that the journalist shouldn'’t be giving her opinions anyway, I had to ask myself, what the heck does “take the moral high ground” mean in this context?
Well folks, there, in a phrase, is the liberal analysis for you – an unexplained, fuzzy-wuzzy, feel good emotional statement devoid of any thought or intellectual analysis. As I explain more fully below, however, it is these simple emotional platitudes such as those from Ms. Sherman and ones recently echoed by Attorney General Eric Holder (comparing war criminal KSM to a serial killer) that help explain why our Constitutional rights are quickly fading away.
The fact is, however, that a lot has been written about decision by the Government to try KSM in criminal court in New York City as opposed to trying him before a military tribunal. Polls have been taken which show a substantial majority of Americans oppose the decision and many pundits and commentators criticized the decision. Even liberal New Yorkers are against it. Critics ranging from 9/11 victims’ families to Mayor Bloomberg and others, point to various unanswered questions and to flaws in the decision-making process, including the following:
(1) The reckless expenditure of $100 million or more of taxpayer dollars for a trial of one person where a military tribunal is not only available but specifically authorized by an act of Congress; (2) Trying KSM in New York will give KSM a terrorist propaganda platform; (3) The trial will greatly and unnecessarily upset an already scarred civilian population; (4) What will the United States do if KSM is acquitted by a “jury of his peers” or if he gets off on a technicality, and then he walks smugly, triumphantly and victoriously down the Courthouse steps for all the news cameras to see?; (5) Why on Earth would the Government risk losing a criminal trial when KSM, through a lawyer, has reportedly already offered to plead guilty before a military tribunal?; (6) Given the dozens of prior trials of spies and war criminals before military tribunals and given the specific Congressional mandate such tribunals for terrorists, it is Constitutional and more appropriate to try KSM and other terrorists of war crimes; (7) KSM may embarrass the United States or otherwise compromise National security by successfully by employing any criminal defendant’s right to access relevant evidence, which may include evidence of the CIA's tactics and intelligence; (9) The likelihood of a conviction and application is not high given that it takes only 1 juror out of 12 to result in a mistrial or to override application of the death penalty; and (10) Terrorists may use the opportunity to once again target New York during the KSM trial.
Some or all of these criticisms may be indeed valid, but I believe the following additional and paramount concern has unfortunately been left out of the conversation and is certainly something that the esteemed Ms. Sherman and her like-minded friends probably haven’t even thought about: Trying KSM as a criminal defendant sets bad legal precedent which can erode our Constitutional rights.
What is legal precedent and why should we Americans care? In simple terms, precedent is a rule of law set by a Court by way of a decision or a ruling flowing from civil and criminal proceedings. Unless overturned by higher courts, these decisions and rulings establish legal authority that other judges are obligated to follow or, in some circumstances, constitute authority that judges should be persuaded by. Precedent can, of course, be a good thing, because it helps a judge come to a decision if one his or her sister judge’s has already analyzed similar facts and issues and provided an answer. Thus, precedent helps establish the way future courts must or should rule when faced with similar facts or issues.
An easy to understand example of precedent is the "Miranda Warnings", which we all know are now constitutionally required statements that any police officers must tell a suspected criminal when he or she is in police custody, is being questioned or is arrested. But the “Miranda Warnings” did not come out of thin air. The warnings were first articulated in a decision by a court—the United States Supreme Court, in fact—and since that decision, every police officer in our great country has had to read any American his or her Miranda Warnings or risk having any evidence from their interrogations not being admitted in Court.
Therefore, with the idea of “precedent” in mind, it is clear that trying KSM as a criminal defendant, and guarantying to him all Constitutional protections afforded to you and me as Americans will lead to a number horrible rulings from the Court which could have the impact of damaging all of our rights. Here is how the decision to try KSM in could impact you and me:
1. The Loss of the Right to A Speedy Trial: Under the Constitution, we all enjoy a right to have our case heard by a jury of our peers, and to have it heard quickly. Here’s how the exchange between, KSM, through his Court appointed lawyer(s) (paid for by you and me) and the Judge will go as to this right which KSM will seek to cloak himself under:
KSM Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in Gitmo for almost a decade without any hearings or any rights! Dismiss his case pursuant to the United States Constitution and all of the cases cited in my legal brief which says that my client must go free!”
Judge: [Thinking that he can’t dismiss the case because the public will freak out] says, “Uhhhm, well I am going to deny your request because 9 years does not deprive the right to a speedy trial in this case.”
The public exhales because KSM doesn’t get off on a technicality. Now fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something. The government decides to throw you in a pit for nine years without being able to access the Courts or a lawyer. Here’s how the motion to dismiss your case might go on the ground that you were deprived of a right to speedy trial.
Your Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in a pit for years without the access to the Courts! This is un-American!!! You must dismiss this case.”
The Prosecutor: “Judge, you should know that in the case of United States v. KSM, Judge So-and-So clearly held that it was not unconstitutional to hold someone for almost a decade. That case is precedent and you should follow the holding of that case.”
See what I’m saying now? Let’s try another one.
2. The Loss of the Right Not To Be Tortured And then Tried:
Clearly, if you are arrested and the government decides to spend years torturing you before appointing you a lawyer or otherwise giving you access to the Courts, your case should be dismissed based on numerous grounds and the government should be sanctioned. Indeed, any Judge would be horrified to learn that the government abused its police powers this way to any American. But now here we have KSM who was water boarded dozens of times after being “arrested.” President Obama has officially declared that water boarding is torture. Now let’s go to the hearing:
KSM’s Layer: “Judge, my client has been serially and repeatedly tortured by the government. He has been water boarded. He has been put in a box with ants. He has been deprived of food and water. This case must be dismissed on numerous grounds and I request that, not only should the government be sanctioned, those responsible should be put in jail, including President Bush!”
The Judge: [Thinking to himself, “Uh oh. What to do? I can’t let this guy go.”] Sir, I am going to agree with you that what the government did is horrible and I apologize for that, but I am not going to dismiss the case. However, I will say that any statement made during those torture sessions will not be evidence in this case.”
KSM’s Lawyer: “Are you serious, Judge?”
Again, fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something and now think about what the government can get away with doing to you and will be able to later argue is “Constitutional” because the KSM Judge let it happen. This is getting scary, right?
3. The Right to A Fair Trial/Change of Venue
Any criminal defendant can have the place of his trial changed where the local population is already prejudiced against him based on media and other publicly known facts. So where does the government decide to try KSM? Why, in New York! Brilliant. Can you name any local population that has more prejudice against a criminal defendant than New Yorkers have against the 9/11 terrorists? And if and when the Judge refuses to change the venue to another courthouse, think about any criminal case in the future that wants to change venue. It won’t happen because of the precedent set in the KSM trial.
4. The Right to A Lawyer:
The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to a lawyer following an arrest. KSM, however, was not given access to a lawyer for years and years. Playing out the above Courtroom scenario, the Judge will once again refuse to dismiss the case on the grounds that KSM was not given access to a lawyer. Thanks again, we now have another ruling that says that the Constitution does not give you the right to a lawyer for years! Woohoo!!
Of course, I could go on and on and, surely, people who disagree with the above will try to point out that future Judges would not have to follow the KSM judge’s rulings because, I guess, KSM is a terrorist or something. But such superficial arguments fail to take into account the truth that once precedent has been set, it is a guidepost for future cases.
Now, where should KSM be tried again?
Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York Federal Court Will Destroy Your Constitutional Rights:
Deborah Sherman, a “journalist” for the New York Times magazine, recently interviewed a Republican Senator. In response to the Senator's question to Sherman as to why journalist Sherman thought foreign terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) should be tried as criminal defendants and thereby getting all of the Constitutional rights and benefit of a United States citizen, journalist Sherman was happy to say we "should take the moral high ground." Forgetting about the fact that the journalist shouldn'’t be giving her opinions anyway, I had to ask myself, what the heck does “take the moral high ground” mean in this context?
Well folks, there, in a phrase, is the liberal analysis for you – an unexplained, fuzzy-wuzzy, feel good emotional statement devoid of any thought or intellectual analysis. As I explain more fully below, however, it is these simple emotional platitudes such as those from Ms. Sherman and ones recently echoed by Attorney General Eric Holder (comparing war criminal KSM to a serial killer) that help explain why our Constitutional rights are quickly fading away.
The fact is, however, that a lot has been written about decision by the Government to try KSM in criminal court in New York City as opposed to trying him before a military tribunal. Polls have been taken which show a substantial majority of Americans oppose the decision and many pundits and commentators criticized the decision. Even liberal New Yorkers are against it. Critics ranging from 9/11 victims’ families to Mayor Bloomberg and others, point to various unanswered questions and to flaws in the decision-making process, including the following:
(1) The reckless expenditure of $100 million or more of taxpayer dollars for a trial of one person where a military tribunal is not only available but specifically authorized by an act of Congress; (2) Trying KSM in New York will give KSM a terrorist propaganda platform; (3) The trial will greatly and unnecessarily upset an already scarred civilian population; (4) What will the United States do if KSM is acquitted by a “jury of his peers” or if he gets off on a technicality, and then he walks smugly, triumphantly and victoriously down the Courthouse steps for all the news cameras to see?; (5) Why on Earth would the Government risk losing a criminal trial when KSM, through a lawyer, has reportedly already offered to plead guilty before a military tribunal?; (6) Given the dozens of prior trials of spies and war criminals before military tribunals and given the specific Congressional mandate such tribunals for terrorists, it is Constitutional and more appropriate to try KSM and other terrorists of war crimes; (7) KSM may embarrass the United States or otherwise compromise National security by successfully by employing any criminal defendant’s right to access relevant evidence, which may include evidence of the CIA's tactics and intelligence; (9) The likelihood of a conviction and application is not high given that it takes only 1 juror out of 12 to result in a mistrial or to override application of the death penalty; and (10) Terrorists may use the opportunity to once again target New York during the KSM trial.
Some or all of these criticisms may be indeed valid, but I believe the following additional and paramount concern has unfortunately been left out of the conversation and is certainly something that the esteemed Ms. Sherman and her like-minded friends probably haven’t even thought about: Trying KSM as a criminal defendant sets bad legal precedent which can erode our Constitutional rights.
What is legal precedent and why should we Americans care? In simple terms, precedent is a rule of law set by a Court by way of a decision or a ruling flowing from civil and criminal proceedings. Unless overturned by higher courts, these decisions and rulings establish legal authority that other judges are obligated to follow or, in some circumstances, constitute authority that judges should be persuaded by. Precedent can, of course, be a good thing, because it helps a judge come to a decision if one his or her sister judge’s has already analyzed similar facts and issues and provided an answer. Thus, precedent helps establish the way future courts must or should rule when faced with similar facts or issues.
An easy to understand example of precedent is the "Miranda Warnings", which we all know are now constitutionally required statements that any police officers must tell a suspected criminal when he or she is in police custody, is being questioned or is arrested. But the “Miranda Warnings” did not come out of thin air. The warnings were first articulated in a decision by a court—the United States Supreme Court, in fact—and since that decision, every police officer in our great country has had to read any American his or her Miranda Warnings or risk having any evidence from their interrogations not being admitted in Court.
Therefore, with the idea of “precedent” in mind, it is clear that trying KSM as a criminal defendant, and guarantying to him all Constitutional protections afforded to you and me as Americans will lead to a number horrible rulings from the Court which could have the impact of damaging all of our rights. Here is how the decision to try KSM in could impact you and me:
1. The Loss of the Right to A Speedy Trial: Under the Constitution, we all enjoy a right to have our case heard by a jury of our peers, and to have it heard quickly. Here’s how the exchange between, KSM, through his Court appointed lawyer(s) (paid for by you and me) and the Judge will go as to this right which KSM will seek to cloak himself under:
KSM Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in Gitmo for almost a decade without any hearings or any rights! Dismiss his case pursuant to the United States Constitution and all of the cases cited in my legal brief which says that my client must go free!”
Judge: [Thinking that he can’t dismiss the case because the public will freak out] says, “Uhhhm, well I am going to deny your request because 9 years does not deprive the right to a speedy trial in this case.”
The public exhales because KSM doesn’t get off on a technicality. Now fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something. The government decides to throw you in a pit for nine years without being able to access the Courts or a lawyer. Here’s how the motion to dismiss your case might go on the ground that you were deprived of a right to speedy trial.
Your Lawyer: “Judge, my poor client has been sitting in a pit for years without the access to the Courts! This is un-American!!! You must dismiss this case.”
The Prosecutor: “Judge, you should know that in the case of United States v. KSM, Judge So-and-So clearly held that it was not unconstitutional to hold someone for almost a decade. That case is precedent and you should follow the holding of that case.”
See what I’m saying now? Let’s try another one.
2. The Loss of the Right Not To Be Tortured And then Tried:
Clearly, if you are arrested and the government decides to spend years torturing you before appointing you a lawyer or otherwise giving you access to the Courts, your case should be dismissed based on numerous grounds and the government should be sanctioned. Indeed, any Judge would be horrified to learn that the government abused its police powers this way to any American. But now here we have KSM who was water boarded dozens of times after being “arrested.” President Obama has officially declared that water boarding is torture. Now let’s go to the hearing:
KSM’s Layer: “Judge, my client has been serially and repeatedly tortured by the government. He has been water boarded. He has been put in a box with ants. He has been deprived of food and water. This case must be dismissed on numerous grounds and I request that, not only should the government be sanctioned, those responsible should be put in jail, including President Bush!”
The Judge: [Thinking to himself, “Uh oh. What to do? I can’t let this guy go.”] Sir, I am going to agree with you that what the government did is horrible and I apologize for that, but I am not going to dismiss the case. However, I will say that any statement made during those torture sessions will not be evidence in this case.”
KSM’s Lawyer: “Are you serious, Judge?”
Again, fast forward to the time that you happen to get arrested (rightly or wrongly) for something and now think about what the government can get away with doing to you and will be able to later argue is “Constitutional” because the KSM Judge let it happen. This is getting scary, right?
3. The Right to A Fair Trial/Change of Venue
Any criminal defendant can have the place of his trial changed where the local population is already prejudiced against him based on media and other publicly known facts. So where does the government decide to try KSM? Why, in New York! Brilliant. Can you name any local population that has more prejudice against a criminal defendant than New Yorkers have against the 9/11 terrorists? And if and when the Judge refuses to change the venue to another courthouse, think about any criminal case in the future that wants to change venue. It won’t happen because of the precedent set in the KSM trial.
4. The Right to A Lawyer:
The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to a lawyer following an arrest. KSM, however, was not given access to a lawyer for years and years. Playing out the above Courtroom scenario, the Judge will once again refuse to dismiss the case on the grounds that KSM was not given access to a lawyer. Thanks again, we now have another ruling that says that the Constitution does not give you the right to a lawyer for years! Woohoo!!
Of course, I could go on and on and, surely, people who disagree with the above will try to point out that future Judges would not have to follow the KSM judge’s rulings because, I guess, KSM is a terrorist or something. But such superficial arguments fail to take into account the truth that once precedent has been set, it is a guidepost for future cases.
Now, where should KSM be tried again?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Health Care Part IV: Contract On America
When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" l
Because of socialized medicine imposed on us from on high, for the first time in American history, the federal government is requiring each American citizen to enter into a contract with a third party (a health insurance company). Should you fail to do so, you will incur a criminal penalty (a fine). There are no exceptions. It applies to all citizens and permanent residents. (While it does not apply to illegal aliens, that is a mere formality as Obama plans on offering Amnesty to illegal aliens. He actually refuses to use the term "illegal aliens", instead he refers to them as "soon to be registered Democrats".)
Now whenever Congress passes a law, we should all be in the habit of asking "Where do they get the power to do so?" Congressional power & authority is limited by the U.S. Constitution. Usually, in the law itself, you will find language that cites the specific provision in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to enact that law.
In the socialized medicine bill, Congress says that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives them the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance.
While there is no question that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, this bill compels Americans who choose to NOT engage in interstate commerce to enter into a contract or face a criminal penalty.
So the Constitutional Question is: Does the reach of the commerce clause extend to Americans who choose to NOT engage in commerce? In other words, if I don't want to buy health insurance, does the federal government have the authority to make me do so under the penalty of law?
Now our liberal friends, who are soft of mind and bleeding of heart, argue that since there is a "social good" that comes out of mandating that we all purchase health insurance, it is perfectly acceptable to require Americans to enter into a contract against their will.
That is a very scary argument to make my friends.
If you think that compelling Americans to enter into a contract or buy a product against their will is constitutional because: (1) the underlying activity affects interstate commerce; and (2) there is a "social good" that comes from requiring them to so, then where does it end?
What other products and services can we be compelled to buy?
If the President tells us that energy conservation is important, can he compel us to purchase a windmill or solar panels or face a criminal penalty? If you think mandatory health insurance is constitutional, you HAVE to think this would be constitutional as well. Energy use, like health care, is an interstate activity, right? And energy conservation much like universal health insurance, is a common good, correct?
Can the Congress pass a law requiring that FAT BASTARDS like Baldman purchase a StairMaster from a government approved manufacturer? Can they put an ankle bracelet on Baldman's FAT ankle to ensure that he is using it? Why not? Doesn't the costs of obesity effect interstate commerce? Wouldn't it help society if the Baldman's of the world lost weight?
You may try to shrug off the examples above as being extreme. But they are not. Requiring Americans to enter into a contract against their will is the extreme thing. And the unconstitutional thing.
And that is now the law.
Because of socialized medicine imposed on us from on high, for the first time in American history, the federal government is requiring each American citizen to enter into a contract with a third party (a health insurance company). Should you fail to do so, you will incur a criminal penalty (a fine). There are no exceptions. It applies to all citizens and permanent residents. (While it does not apply to illegal aliens, that is a mere formality as Obama plans on offering Amnesty to illegal aliens. He actually refuses to use the term "illegal aliens", instead he refers to them as "soon to be registered Democrats".)
Now whenever Congress passes a law, we should all be in the habit of asking "Where do they get the power to do so?" Congressional power & authority is limited by the U.S. Constitution. Usually, in the law itself, you will find language that cites the specific provision in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to enact that law.
In the socialized medicine bill, Congress says that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives them the authority to require that every American purchase health insurance.
While there is no question that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, this bill compels Americans who choose to NOT engage in interstate commerce to enter into a contract or face a criminal penalty.
So the Constitutional Question is: Does the reach of the commerce clause extend to Americans who choose to NOT engage in commerce? In other words, if I don't want to buy health insurance, does the federal government have the authority to make me do so under the penalty of law?
Now our liberal friends, who are soft of mind and bleeding of heart, argue that since there is a "social good" that comes out of mandating that we all purchase health insurance, it is perfectly acceptable to require Americans to enter into a contract against their will.
That is a very scary argument to make my friends.
If you think that compelling Americans to enter into a contract or buy a product against their will is constitutional because: (1) the underlying activity affects interstate commerce; and (2) there is a "social good" that comes from requiring them to so, then where does it end?
What other products and services can we be compelled to buy?
If the President tells us that energy conservation is important, can he compel us to purchase a windmill or solar panels or face a criminal penalty? If you think mandatory health insurance is constitutional, you HAVE to think this would be constitutional as well. Energy use, like health care, is an interstate activity, right? And energy conservation much like universal health insurance, is a common good, correct?
Can the Congress pass a law requiring that FAT BASTARDS like Baldman purchase a StairMaster from a government approved manufacturer? Can they put an ankle bracelet on Baldman's FAT ankle to ensure that he is using it? Why not? Doesn't the costs of obesity effect interstate commerce? Wouldn't it help society if the Baldman's of the world lost weight?
You may try to shrug off the examples above as being extreme. But they are not. Requiring Americans to enter into a contract against their will is the extreme thing. And the unconstitutional thing.
And that is now the law.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
I'm Glad It Happened. But Never Again
A couple of last thoughts on the Nets move to Brooklyn, and the use of eminent domain to provide the land where the Nets will play.
Do I think the use of eminent domain in this instance is unconstitutional?
Yes I do. The fifth amendment is clear on this. If the government takes your property against your will (and compensates you for doing so) it has to be for a public purpose. It's straightforward: if the government takes your house because it wants to build a highway-that is a legitimate use of eminent domain. A highway is used by the public. It passes constitutional muster. But to take private property -against the will of the owner- and turn that property over to a private developer to build an arena, some office towers and apartment buildings? That surely does not meet the public use requirement of the takings clause of the 5th amendment.
So why have the Courts not stopped this unconstitutional land grab?
Because the Supreme Court has waterdowned the definition of "public use"- there really is no distinction between public & private use. If a property or area is defined as "blighted" the Supreme Court says its OK to take that land and hand it over to a private developer. In 2005, in the New London case, the Supreme Court extended the use of eminent domain even further to include "non-blighted" property. The New London case is scary and should be overturned ASAP. In New London, the city of New London used eminent domain to turn private property over to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Was the area "blighted"? No. So why was New London allowed to take the property? New London said that turning the property over to Pfizer would create more tax revenue for the city. And that was enough to meet the public use requirement. And the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with that rationale.
Bottom line: after New London, if the federal, state and local governments want to take your property, all they have to show is that the property will generate more taxes once they take it.
Like in so many other areas, when it comes to eminent domain, the Supreme Court has made horrible decisions that subverts the meaning of the constitution. If the Supreme Court did its job, NYC would never have been allowed confiscate privately owned land and turn it over to a private developer to build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets to play in. It never should have happened.
I don't understand. If you say its unconstitutional, how can you support the use of eminent domain in downtown Brooklyn?
I support it because I am a hypocrite. My desire to see Brooklyn have a professional basketball team outweighs the undeniable fact that in order to achieve that goal, the constitutional rights of many fellow Brooklynites were trampled upon. I know I am wrong to support it, but I still do.
Here is what I would love to see happen: Once the arena is built, and Lebron scores the first basket for the hometown team, I want the Supreme Court to overturn New London. I want public use to mean public use. Not private use. What happened in Atlantic Yards should never happen again. To anybody.
But I'm glad in happened in the first place.
But never again.
Do I think the use of eminent domain in this instance is unconstitutional?
Yes I do. The fifth amendment is clear on this. If the government takes your property against your will (and compensates you for doing so) it has to be for a public purpose. It's straightforward: if the government takes your house because it wants to build a highway-that is a legitimate use of eminent domain. A highway is used by the public. It passes constitutional muster. But to take private property -against the will of the owner- and turn that property over to a private developer to build an arena, some office towers and apartment buildings? That surely does not meet the public use requirement of the takings clause of the 5th amendment.
So why have the Courts not stopped this unconstitutional land grab?
Because the Supreme Court has waterdowned the definition of "public use"- there really is no distinction between public & private use. If a property or area is defined as "blighted" the Supreme Court says its OK to take that land and hand it over to a private developer. In 2005, in the New London case, the Supreme Court extended the use of eminent domain even further to include "non-blighted" property. The New London case is scary and should be overturned ASAP. In New London, the city of New London used eminent domain to turn private property over to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Was the area "blighted"? No. So why was New London allowed to take the property? New London said that turning the property over to Pfizer would create more tax revenue for the city. And that was enough to meet the public use requirement. And the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, agreed with that rationale.
Bottom line: after New London, if the federal, state and local governments want to take your property, all they have to show is that the property will generate more taxes once they take it.
Like in so many other areas, when it comes to eminent domain, the Supreme Court has made horrible decisions that subverts the meaning of the constitution. If the Supreme Court did its job, NYC would never have been allowed confiscate privately owned land and turn it over to a private developer to build an arena for the Brooklyn Nets to play in. It never should have happened.
I don't understand. If you say its unconstitutional, how can you support the use of eminent domain in downtown Brooklyn?
I support it because I am a hypocrite. My desire to see Brooklyn have a professional basketball team outweighs the undeniable fact that in order to achieve that goal, the constitutional rights of many fellow Brooklynites were trampled upon. I know I am wrong to support it, but I still do.
Here is what I would love to see happen: Once the arena is built, and Lebron scores the first basket for the hometown team, I want the Supreme Court to overturn New London. I want public use to mean public use. Not private use. What happened in Atlantic Yards should never happen again. To anybody.
But I'm glad in happened in the first place.
But never again.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Stoop Sampling
P Diddy has a cologne. He's being sued by an artist who claims the bottle the cologne comes in is a ripoff of one of his works of art.
If this thing goes to trial, will the artist be able to enter into evidence Mr. Diddy's songs? Since his "songs" are really "samples"of other peoples songs, it shows he has a history of taking an existing product-in this case, a song- and using that product to create a new product. While it doesn't prove that is what he did in creating the cologne, it does reflect a pattern of business behaviour that Diddy has engaged in for many years.
In criminal law, a pattern of behaviour in some instances can be entered into evidence to prove the current allegations. Say you are charged with a bank robbery. In most cases, the fact that you have been convicted of previous bank robberies cannot be entered into evidence against you. The rationale: the previous convictions are not evidence that you committed the current bank robbery. However, if your previous bank robbery convictions showed you engaged in a unique pattern of behaviour that matches the current allegations-say, you brought a violin to each bank & sang "Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree"- then a judge may allow the previous bank robberies to be entered into evidence.
If this thing goes to trial, will the artist be able to enter into evidence Mr. Diddy's songs? Since his "songs" are really "samples"of other peoples songs, it shows he has a history of taking an existing product-in this case, a song- and using that product to create a new product. While it doesn't prove that is what he did in creating the cologne, it does reflect a pattern of business behaviour that Diddy has engaged in for many years.
In criminal law, a pattern of behaviour in some instances can be entered into evidence to prove the current allegations. Say you are charged with a bank robbery. In most cases, the fact that you have been convicted of previous bank robberies cannot be entered into evidence against you. The rationale: the previous convictions are not evidence that you committed the current bank robbery. However, if your previous bank robbery convictions showed you engaged in a unique pattern of behaviour that matches the current allegations-say, you brought a violin to each bank & sang "Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree"- then a judge may allow the previous bank robberies to be entered into evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
