With these conservative boot-lickers, who needs liberals?

"So Where Does Ms. Kelo Go To Get Her Home Back?" asks McQ. Then the noted boot-licker "Joe," with the equally boot-licking Steverino (who I have previously exposed as a worshipper of the state), have the unbelievable positions of defending government's "right" to seize people's property. But, they argue, the law permits it, the Constitution permits it, due process.

Yes, they've had fit in just fine with the Tories of colonial America.

My reply:

Good lord, you two are such contemptible boot-lickers. You have no idea of real liberty and instead worship the state, babbling on about legalese nonsense you don’t even understand.

Kelo had her house seized — how can either of you maintain that it was it not? She didn’t leave voluntarily. She left because the police would have dragged her out, and physically resisting would have meant additional force to subdue her. She could have also been arrested and jailed for contempt of court, no matter how wrong the court’s decision was. It doesn’t matter. As Jefferson put it, “Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Kelo was forced to take “just compensation” — it was never enough to convince her to sell, but she had to accept, or else. You can blabber all you want about “fair market value,” but that does not mean someone has the right to force someone to sell property at a price the owner thinks is too low. What you, “society” or “government” thinks is a “fair price” doesn’t matter. That’s none of your business: people will ascribe different economic values to the same thing, and it’s the owner’s right to want higher than someone else would ask for. It doesn’t matter that Kelo wanted to continue living in a blighted area. That’s none of your business, either. Or do you think you or “society” have a right to make people live elsewhere? Do you not believe that people have rights over their own property?

Why don’t you take a midnight walk through some friendly parts of Brooklyn, say, Brownsville, Crown Heights or East New York? Be sure to sport nice clothes and flash a bit of dough. I’m sure that some locals would love to demonstrate how they can acquire your possessions without “seizing” them. You’ll be no more harmed than Kelo and other affected homeowners were.

You cite “law” and even “the Constitution” as if they’re absolute, when in fact law that violates individuals’ rights is of no effect, being inherently unjust. Do you defend slavery as “legal” before the 13th Amendment? Or do you understand that just because something is “the law” does not mean it is automatically just and correct?

Just because the Supreme Court makes a decision does not mean it’s correct. Don’t you know what happened to Dred Scott? His status as mere property was, guess what, ruled according to the law.

You cite “due process” and ignore that William Wallace, Anne Boleyn, John Lathrop, Giles Corey and countless others were given “due process” according to the law. “Due process” is a meaningless phrase to lovers of liberty, and a tool for the tyrant to make things legally permissible.

Here’s a news flash, dude/dudette the US Constitution is SELDOM ever clear about what it “means” exactly.

And yet you cite it to support your own side. You’re nothing but a hypocrite, “Joe.”

As wrong as the Constitution can be, it was written very plainly. What does ”

I wasn’t entirely pleased to sell my ancestral manse on after the Parental Units died, and the price wasn’t all I hoped for either, BUT I took the deal.

And why did you? Money pressure? Or did the government come and tell you that you had to sell, because everyone up to the Supreme Court said so?

You apparently chose to sell. No one threatened to toss you out if you didn’t comply.

So, there is established law that allows the state to buy property from an individual without the individual’s consent, but with fair compensation. That’s not force winning out over property rights, that’s a state exerting its Constitutionally allocated power.

What disingenuous bullcrap. It’s still force, because the homeowner didn’t want to do it. The fact that it’s “Constitutionally allocated power” still does not make it “right” or “proper.” Why is this so hard for you boot-lickers to comprehend?

Even going by your standard of the Constitution, eminent domain was never intended for this. The four conservative justices disagreed, in case you didn’t notice. You’re defending the five liberal justices who think it’s ok for government to make someone sell his home to a private buyer.

You two are just two more reasons this country has gone to hell, not only because you look the other way when the state runs roughshod over people’s rights, but because you defend the state’s power to do so. Don’t cry to us when it happens to you. In fact, would you care to give us your addresses, so the rest of us can arrange for your local governments to condemn your residences andgive you pennies on the dollar?

And here are two free hints, Joe. First, right-click “Reply” so that you can make things threaded, instead of your myriad posts of trying to drown out everybodyelse? (But that’s the only way you “win” threads here, anyway.) And second, Connecticut is abbreviated CT, not CN. Then again, Connecticut’s loathsome seizure of property is exactly what you’d expect in China.