23-05-2003 21:22									#241
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

HO on the issue of a long it takes to get a permit to issue if the clerk denies the permit, it depends. The ordinances usually require that one apply at least 28 days prior to the event. This should give everyone time to maneuver legally if that is required. Courts can and do issue restraining orders very quickly if the circumstances require. All one has to do is look at the events surrounding the election controversy between Bush and Gore to see that even the Supreme Court can act on a matter on a number of hours, if necessary.

Last edited by Ned on 23-05-2003 at 21:54

	23-05-2003 22:20									#242
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara . Of course, I believe that a truely democratic system would lead to the latter eventually. It's also what the framers thought, which is why they designed our system to be rather undemocratic.

only some of the framers - madison, hamilton and Jay notably, whose views are particularly remembered as they wrote the federalist papers. I daresay Jefferson and his numerous followers did not think so at all, but thought that democracy was the best way to defend private property, especially the private property of the small holders.

I daresay that TJ proved correct, as the repeated movement away from the 1789 constitution to a more democratic one has resulted in numerous limitations on private property, but no real shift to communal property - essentially the class interests of the small holders have won out (to the extent they havent taken the large property holders head on) , as TJ intended. while the extent of this can be disputed, and is the subejct of US politics to this day, it seems unlikely that any shift to further direct democracy would shift us toward communal property - more likely it would shift the balance between the small holders and the large property holders.

	23-05-2003 22:29									#243
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned HO on the issue of a long it takes to get a permit to issue if the clerk denies the permit, it depends. The ordinances usually require that one apply at least 28 days prior to the event.

28 DAYS ? Are you sure you're not confusing this with something else, it looks extremely restrictive.

If say the location of a meeting of politicians is announced 1 week ahead, I would have no chance to demonstrate legally against that. It looks like an invitation for abuse, especially if you don't find a swift court.

	23-05-2003 22:44									#244
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I daresay that TJ proved correct, as the repeated movement away from the 1789 constitution to a more democratic one has resulted in numerous limitations on private property, but no real shift to communal property - essentially the class interests of the small holders have won out (to the extent they havent taken the large property holders head on) , as TJ intended. while the extent of this can be disputed, and is the subejct of US politics to this day, it seems unlikely that any shift to further direct democracy would shift us toward communal property - more likely it would shift the balance between the small holders and the large property holders.

This is far to rosy a picture. In reality, the practice of eminent domain has escaped all boundaries. That is, the practice of condemning property for public use. At first this practise was limited to buying out someone's house to build a highway. Fair enough. Then it started being used to buy out someone's house to build a sports stadium. Local governments justified this on the grounds that the stadium was for the good of the community. Never mind the fact that pro-sports is a billion dollar INDUSTRY that can afford to build their own stadiums AND don't really bring that many high-paying jobs to the community. But - people are stupid over sports teams. (I used to live in New Orleans - and the amount of money that the city, i.e. taxpayers, would pay for the Saints to stay was disgusting. Far more than the Saints returned to the community in the form of minimum wage food service jobs.)

Now we get to the final straw. Home Depot has a bad habit of getting local municipalites to condemn longstanding local businesses and homes because another f***ing Home Depot would make more money and therefore return more tax revenue to the community. In other words, the city, using taxpayers' money, forcibly buys out homes and businesses in order to make a sweatheart deal with a megacorporation! (And BTW, in the Tuscon case where this happened, the condemned land was sold to HD at a fraction of the price it cost to condemn - i.e. the taxpayers subsidized kicking people out of their businesses to build a damn Home Depot. What, home depot can't afford to build a new store on their own dime?)

Of course, almost any land use is more efficient that single family housing - so its almost always a colorable case that another Sprawlmart or Kick-You-Out-of-Your-Home Depot will be a "better" use of the land. So whatever our system is now, it sure as hell does not protect the small holder. At least not against large megacorps. Remember that when you buy your nice little suburban home, you conservative chumps. There's your free f***ing market. Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

	23-05-2003 23:15									#245
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by The Templar This is far to rosy a picture. In reality, the practice of eminent domain has escaped all boundaries. That is, the practice of condemning property for public use. At first this practise was limited to buying out someone's house to build a highway. Fair enough. Then it started being used to buy out someone's house to build a sports stadium. Local governments justified this on the grounds that the stadium was for the good of the community. Never mind the fact that pro-sports is a billion dollar INDUSTRY that can afford to build their own stadiums AND don't really bring that many high-paying jobs to the community. But - people are stupid over sports teams. (I used to live in New Orleans - and the amount of money that the city, i.e. taxpayers, would pay for the Saints to stay was disgusting. Far more than the Saints returned to the community in the form of minimum wage food service jobs.) Now we get to the final straw. Home Depot has a bad habit of getting local municipalites to condemn longstanding local businesses and homes because another f***ing Home Depot would make more money and therefore return more tax revenue to the community. In other words, the city, using taxpayers' money, forcibly buys out homes and businesses in order to make a sweatheart deal with a megacorporation! (And BTW, in the Tuscon case where this happened, the condemned land was sold to HD at a fraction of the price it cost to condemn - i.e. the taxpayers subsidized kicking people out of their businesses to build a damn Home Depot. What, home depot can't afford to build a new store on their own dime?) Of course, almost any land use is more efficient that single family housing - so its almost always a colorable case that another Sprawlmart or Kick-You-Out-of-Your-Home Depot will be a "better" use of the land. So whatever our system is now, it sure as hell does not protect the small holder. At least not against large megacorps. Remember that when you buy your nice little suburban home, you conservative chumps. There's your free f***ing market. Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

must be an east coast west coast thing or something - where i live its very hard to displace existing single family housing - as a result we end up with developers building townhouses 30 miles from the center city, while not particularly luxurious single family home neighborhoods sit walking distance of rail transit, 10 miles from the center city.

In fact the zoning will make it hard to build a non-conforming use even on your own property in a single family neighborhood - the people denying your property rights are your fellow small holders, doing it for the sake of their own interests.

Im sure big property interests make themselves felt in many instances, other interests come into play as well.

	23-05-2003 23:25									#246
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Police attacking the left across Midwest Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by The Templar This is far to rosy a picture. In reality, the practice of eminent domain has escaped all boundaries. That is, the practice of condemning property for public use. At first this practise was limited to buying out someone's house to build a highway. Fair enough. Then it started being used to buy out someone's house to build a sports stadium. Local governments justified this on the grounds that the stadium was for the good of the community. Never mind the fact that pro-sports is a billion dollar INDUSTRY that can afford to build their own stadiums AND don't really bring that many high-paying jobs to the community. But - people are stupid over sports teams. (I used to live in New Orleans - and the amount of money that the city, i.e. taxpayers, would pay for the Saints to stay was disgusting. Far more than the Saints returned to the community in the form of minimum wage food service jobs.) Now we get to the final straw. Home Depot has a bad habit of getting local municipalites to condemn longstanding local businesses and homes because another f***ing Home Depot would make more money and therefore return more tax revenue to the community. In other words, the city, using taxpayers' money, forcibly buys out homes and businesses in order to make a sweatheart deal with a megacorporation! (And BTW, in the Tuscon case where this happened, the condemned land was sold to HD at a fraction of the price it cost to condemn - i.e. the taxpayers subsidized kicking people out of their businesses to build a damn Home Depot. What, home depot can't afford to build a new store on their own dime?) Of course, almost any land use is more efficient that single family housing - so its almost always a colorable case that another Sprawlmart or Kick-You-Out-of-Your-Home Depot will be a "better" use of the land. So whatever our system is now, it sure as hell does not protect the small holder. At least not against large megacorps. Remember that when you buy your nice little suburban home, you conservative chumps. There's your free f***ing market. Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

Moving resources is a necessity. Why should social progress be prevented to benefit an individual?

	23-05-2003 23:26									#247
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: If you mean by the constitutional text, it's debatable. If you mean in constitutional practice, not at all.

Well I was talking theory .

quote: Huh? Intent (be it historical, be it telos in text) is a general method of interpretation that per se has nothing to do with natural law. The two can only coincide if the historical legislator sought to implement natural law (to some extent your constitution, or our civil code). The actual 180 degree opposite to natural law thinking would be positivism.

Oh, it's one of those wierd things we do in the states. Some believe that natural law is the 'intent of the framers', instead of simply God's will or humanitarianism, etc.

And isn't positism basically textualism, more or less?

	23-05-2003 23:30									#248
	Police attacking the left across Midwest Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned Chris, it is more interesting because one of the first things the communists would do upon taking power would be to repeal the Bill of Rights.

Very likely Ned.

quote: While the commies were having a discussion awhile back about the fine points of their dogma, I asked simply whether they would support the Bill of Rights in any new communist government. I got no replies. Perhaps they thought the question was so off the wall as to be not worthy of a reply.

Well, most communists believe that a supreme authority should make all decisions, so rights aern't needed, as long as they are the authority.

quote: But what makes America the nation we are is that we are willing to respect the constitutional rights of those who, if in power, would destroy the constitution. By respecting their rights, we demonstrate how ludicrous communism really is.

We bend them at times.

I was actually just teasing Che, whom I know a long time.

	23-05-2003 23:33									#249
	Put an end to popups!

The authorities need to round-up all these Midwest Commies and ship them to Guantanamo Bay.

	23-05-2003 23:38									#250
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Moving resources is a necessity. Why should social progress be prevented to benefit an individual?

How is a Home Depot progress?

Actually I agree with you here to some extent. However, we supposedly live in a system based on private property - or at least conservatives are always touting private property. I assume conservatives have a (non-utilitarian) moral foundation for property, and do not justify private property only on utilitarian grounds. But then progress - which is the quintessential utilitarian justification - is not reason enough to take that to which one has a moral claim.

Now the reason a conservative will make a moral claim to property (and I am sympathetic to this argument) is that "progress" is often in the eye of the beholder. For me, progress would be clearing the suburbs and planting a forrest, eliminating automobiles in favor of more extensive mass transit, etc. My friend who lives out on Long Island sees progress as suburbs, SUVs and minivans, and sprawl as far as the eye can see. Progress for him is away from an urban lifestyle. Thus where there is no social consensus about the direction in which progress lies, property - for the conservative - is a way of maximizing value choices by testing how much people are willing to pay in the market to bring that vision to fruition.

	23-05-2003 23:38									#251
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand The authorities need to round-up all these Midwest Commies and ship them to Guantanamo Bay.

For riding bikes without a liscence? I didn't even know you needed a liscence

	23-05-2003 23:43									#252
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand The authorities need to round-up all these Midwest Commies and ship them to Guantanamo Bay.

Actually, I think we should give Texas back to Mexico - and tell all the crackers in Dallas that they are Mexicans now.

(Note: I have no idea if Slowwhand is a cracker and this comment is not directed personally at him. However, I know enough crackers in Dallas to say they would be livid at the idea of being Mexican. And the idea of Bush country being sent to Mexico is as funny to me as denying due process to lefties is to Slowwhand.)

	23-05-2003 23:43									#253
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by The Templar How is a Home Depot progress?

This is usually done in depressed neighborhoods where more jobs are needed. Also, Home Depot does provide a service to the community. I shop there myself

quote: Originally posted by The Templar Now the reason a conservative will make a moral claim to property (and I am sympathetic to this argument) is that "progress" is often in the eye of the beholder. For me, progress would be clearing the suburbs and planting a forrest, eliminating automobiles in favor of more extensive mass transit, etc. My friend who lives out on Long Island sees progress as suburbs, SUVs and minivans, and sprawl as far as the eye can see. Progress for him is away from an urban lifestyle. Thus where there is no social consensus about the direction in which progress lies, property - for the conservative - is a way of maximizing value choices by testing how much people are willing to pay in the market to bring that vision to fruition.

Yeah, all they care about is profit. Home Depot will bring profit, but in this case I have to say that it will also benefit the community.

	23-05-2003 23:44									#254
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Remember that your boy King George only cares about property rights for those wealth enough to make those campaign contributions.

I don't understand how the President is to blame for local municipalities abusing eminent domain.

(Personally I believe more thing should fall under eminent domain. Allowing states and localities to take property because of 'police powers' and not reimburse is a horrible practice, IMO. And even when there is eminent domain, it should be used sparingly.)

	23-05-2003 23:48									#255
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Imran:

"Well I was talking theory"

Even in theory it's hardly unique.

"Oh, it's one of those wierd things we do in the states. Some believe that natural law is the 'intent of the framers',"

Well there is a lot of natural law thinking behind your constitution, but if you consider the quite obvious intent of the framers not to touch slavery, that's not classic natural law thinking.

"And isn't positism basically textualism, more or less? "

That depends upon the positive law.

	23-05-2003 23:51									#256
	Tired of ads?

quote: Even in theory it's hardly unique.

I wasn't aware of another Western European country where the federal government has such limited soveriegnty (ie, can only do things especially granted to them) in theory.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist . Which countries have the same structure? Does Austria? Hmmm... I guess Switzerland might with its 11 cantons (IIRC). Unfortuently, I'm American , my knowledge of the governments of other countries is sorely lacking.

quote: Well there is a lot of natural law thinking behind your constitution, but if you consider the quite obvious intent of the framers not to touch slavery, that's not classic natural law thinking.

Never said it was. Just that because of the Constitution, natural law (at least on the right) has a TOTALLY different meaning.

	23-05-2003 23:52									#257
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I think she'd like a dinner and a movie first. America doesn't strike me as that kind of girl.

America's a top.

	23-05-2003 23:53									#258
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And isn't positi(v)sm basically textualism, more or less?

No. Textualism, and positivism can line up, but not necessarily.

Positivism is the theory that law is purely a man-made construction and that there is no natural law to which it refers.

Textualism is the view that statutory interpretation should be confined to the actual text of the statute - and not a balancing of equities, reference to legislative history etc.

They can line up because a textualist might argue that natural law is irrelevant to textual interpretation.

However, and Siddi will likely disagree with me here, Clarence Thomas is a Natural Law textualist - he interprets the text within a natural law framework.

Lawyers often have a hard time wrapping their minds around the implications of Textualism. Scalia, for instance, sees textualism as a method for reading statutes as a "reasonable speaker of English would". Of course, this notion of meaning has been dead since Frege and the Vienna Circle stole our "semantic innocence". Thomas is just more forthright about the interpretive "lens" through which he is reading the text. Scalia is doing the same thing - which is why texts always seem to go as ideologically conservative as their language will bear when Scalia is reading them.

	23-05-2003 23:57									#259
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The only problem I have with calling Thomas a natural law textualist, is I don't see how someone who looks at the intent of the framers can really be called a textualist, unless you expand the notion of textualism greatly. Scalia, at the very least, rails against the idea of legislative history and the 'beliefs' of the authors of legislation.

	23-05-2003 23:58									#260
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious This is usually done in depressed neighborhoods where more jobs are needed. Also, Home Depot does provide a service to the community. I shop there myself

Home Depot is a notorious union buster - the poor don't need these sorts of favors. Home Depot pays lightly better than a McJob - but not much. They also rely heavily on part time labor so they don't have to provide benefits.

quote: Yeah, all they care about is profit. Home Depot will bring profit, but in this case I have to say that it will also benefit the community.

How? By ruining local business and taking away homes so that we can buy more lumber to improve our homes, that Home Depot will then take away?

	24-05-2003 00:06									#261
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The only problem I have with calling Thomas a natural law textualist, is I don't see how someone who looks at the intent of the framers can really be called a textualist, unless you expand the notion of textualism greatly. Scalia, at the very least, rails against the idea of legislative history and the 'beliefs' of the authors of legislation.

The problem with Scalia is that he is operating under a 19th Century view of language and meaning. This would be like designing satellites using only Newtonian physics. Now I will agree that Thomas does strecth the traditional meaning of textualists, but the traditional definition relys too much on the text without fleshing out methods of interpretation (or textualism is a suppression of explict examination of interpretive methods - this is an interseting question in itself).

Thomas generally stays within the text (not balancing equities) but uses Natural Law and original intent to flesh out the meaning of the text. Perhaps Thomas is best understood as somewhere between original intent and textualism (I can see how he does not fit neatly into either).

At any rate, the fact that Thomas likes original intent cracks me up because the original intent of the founders was to make him (Thomas) 3/5 of a person.

	24-05-2003 00:08									#262
	Get a bigger avatar today!

(As you may be able to tell, I have no use for original intent people )

	24-05-2003 00:21									#263
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui (As you may be able to tell, I have no use for original intent people )

I got that impression. Neither do I.

	24-05-2003 00:29									#264
	Put an end to popups!

Oh, then some advice... watch out for some of the extreme Libertarians (bezerker, David Floyd, sometimes Wraith)0. Not only are they original intent, but like to have arguments that deal with parsing every statement... They may have posts that have 100 quotes (all with sentances in your posts). It gets absolutely maddening to reply to .

	24-05-2003 00:45									#265
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Imran:

"I wasn't aware of another Western European country where the federal government has such limited soveriegnty (ie, can only do things especially granted to them) in theory."

Austria, Germany, Switzerland. Spain has a mixed System, Belgium may have joined the classic federal club with the last revisions - would have to check it. And it's also included in another federal system, the European Union.

Austria is a bit odd in that regard. We have Art 15:

"(1) In so far as a matter is not expressly assigned by the Federal Constitution to the Federation for legislation or also execution, it remains within the States' autonomous sphere of competence."

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/au00000_.html

Just that a shitload of powers is "expressly assigned" to the federation.

But if you want to study a unique model of federalism, where eg federal laws don't take precedence over state laws, but the states have no courts, I suggest Austria.

In Switzerland and Germany the federation is a lot more limited. And not just in theory.

"I guess Switzerland might with its 11 cantons (IIRC)."

Well it's 23 or 26, depending on how you count the half-cantons.

"Never said it was. Just that because of the Constitution, natural law (at least on the right) has a TOTALLY different meaning."

Haven't encountered that meaning in reading some US doctrine, probably it's realy more on the right wing out.

	24-05-2003 00:45									#266
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Templar, I must say you are really tangled in irrelevancies. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed that Congress should be able authorize a suit by citizens against their own state under federal causes of action -- even though this would undermine fundamental principles of law and renderer the 11th Amendment toothless.

I would politely suggest to you that you have a major problem with legal concepts and have no right to criticize any judge or justice. Your brand of judicial reasoning can be summed up mathematically as "multiply by zero and add in the answer you want." The judiciary with the likes of you as judge and jury would reduce to tyranny.

	24-05-2003 00:47									#267
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Roland: Ah, thanks... maybe I'll take a look.

Ned: What?

	24-05-2003 00:50									#268
	Got spare money?

Hersh is Roland???

	24-05-2003 00:53									#269
	Increase Your PM Length

Belgium has switched too, Art 35.

"(1) The federal authority only has power in the matters that are formally attributed to it by the Constitution and the laws carried in pursuance of the Constitution itself."

	24-05-2003 00:56									#270
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Templar, I must say you are really tangled in irrelevancies. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed that Congress should be able authorize a suit by citizens against their own state under federal causes of action -- even though this would undermine fundamental principles of law and renderer the 11th Amendment toothless.

Slow down your reading speed. If you read the 11th Amend, the text only prohibits suits by citezens of one state against another - not citizens against a state in which they are a citizen (granted, state citizenship is weird in its own way). I said the court in Hans extended 11th Amendment jurisprudence benyond what the 11th Amend. text would bear. Ergo, the precedent is bad. And since when is "soverign immunity" a fundamental principle of law? It isn't even mentioned in the constitution. It's purely a hobgoblin of common law - based on a bad precedent. Go back and reread my earlier posts slowly.

quote: I would politely suggest to you that you have a major problem with legal concepts and have no right to criticize any judge or justice. Your brand of judicial reasoning can be summed up mathematically as "multiply by zero and add in the answer you want." The judiciary with the likes of you as judge and jury would reduce to tyranny.

Which legal concepts would those be? Precedent? I understand that concept well enough to know a bad one. The 11th Amend.? Apparently, you didn't even read the text or you would see that I'm right. Overturning precedent? I understand that concept fairly well given that I read Erie, Brown v. Board, Flood v. Kuhn, etc. Eire and Brown show how it is done, and Flood shows why it is dangerous.

I would politely suggest that next time you shoot off your mouth you actually reap my posts, take the time to comprehend them, and come with some good arguments instead of ad hominem screeds (which you don't do well anyway). You are dismissed.