Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Fixing Eminent Domain

The Supreme Court decision broadening eminent domain was one step from activism. The court didn't order the government to do something, but it broadened it's powers significantly in order to allow it to.

Luckily, the Republican controlled house understands the importance of property rights. The new measure restricts the use of federal dollars to build transportation projects on land gathered through eminent domain. Granted, this doesn't help the citizens of New London's waterfront but considering the most common use of eminent domain was the seizure of land for roads and light rails and highways, over the past half century, I think it'll put a dent in the practice.

5 Comments:

Blogger Josh Kerbel said...

Rumor has it that Sandra Day O Connor was behind the little Liberty Lost hotel planned for land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter

3:54 PM  
Blogger Enigma America said...

Reply to your post:

Obviously you misunderstood the talking points of the ad, that is why it is unethical.
It what was said, not that he appeared in it.

5:18 PM  
Blogger Enigma America said...

Reply:


The entirety of the loss was not because of an, your right. Consider reading the entire post, such as: a stern Vice President emphatically expresses in a demanding tone that "it essential that Tom Coburn wins in Oklahoma." Perhaps I am a bit bitter by the loss but I feel that it is conflict of interest for any Vice President to meddle in the affairs of a state's election by indirectly appearing in a commercial to say this. If nothing else the use of such a statement should be a violation of political campaigning.

Also, did you even follow the link to the blog I am helping?

Next time, I won't dignify your responses with a response.

5:50 PM  
Blogger Enigma America said...

Also:

A Vice President should not be commenting on a state election. Its simple because it is up to the citizens to decide without influence from a President or Vice President. Its very simple, Do you want Kofi Annan commenting on who should be elected President of the United States? Its a conflict of interest, plain and simple. The people of Oklahoma have a right to let higher public officials commenting on their local elections.

5:55 PM  
Blogger TXMed said...

To get a final word in, on a subject removed from eminent domain.

It's not sound to say that it is a conflict of interest for elected officials of the federal government to throw their two cents into a state gubernatorial election.

Not only is it pragmatically unreasonable to make such a claim, seeing as it happens in virtually every campaign that the White House and members of the two federal legislative houses endorse a gubertorial candidate (usually the nominee from their own party) but the claim is simply...well, not true.

The executive branch has no personal stake, beyond the well being of their own political party, in the outcome of Nebraska's statewide elections. They stand for no personal benefit, financial or otherwise, for themselves or their families, etc. and so the term 'conflict of interest' is inappropriate.

I understand that word choice is difficult for people unversed in persuasive writing. As well, grammar often suffers. That's fine, grammar is relatively unimportant as long as a point is communicated effectively. However when it starts affecting syntax and the ability to understand one's intentions, grammatical and syntactical become a major problem. Take for example the following sentence,

"The people of Oklahoma have a right to let higher public officials commenting on their local elections."

As can be seen, as it is, the sentence makes no sense. It is also difficult to try to decipher from the context of the paragraph in which it actually appeared what the original commentator intended by the sentence.

In any case, like it or not, such failed attempts at expression not only call into question a person's communication ability but also their entire intellectual function. I mean that not as an insult but as a point that a reader should take any opinions of an author with such a base understanding of sentence construction, with a grain of salt, as a failure to communicate one's opinions often underlies a flaw in the critical thinking that formed those opinions as well.

6:42 PM  

<< Home