Nullification Nancy

[Voegelin]

The Prowler
7/5/2005
American Spectator

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi is known amongst even her Democratic colleagues as one of the less cerebral members of the House. But even her staff was stunned by her seeming inability to understand the recent Kelo Supreme Court ruling regarding governmental property seizures.

"We briefed her on it. She seemed to ask questions as though she understood it, but clearly she didn't," says a Boxer adviser on Capitol Hill. "How else to explain it?" ...

Even after the press remarks, Pelosi, according to other Democratic staffers, didn't seem to understand what the fuss was all about. "She was oblivious. She really thought she had a handle on some basic ideas about the Supreme Court, the way Congress works with the rulings of the court," says a Democratic leadership staffer. "

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8391

 

[ZaraDurden]

How could you?!?!?

This story contains unnamed sources: it is obviously 100% false.

 

[Voegelin]

How could you?!?!?

This story contains unnamed sources: it is obviously 100% false.

hee....hee....Ms Pelosi was so pleased with herself (apparently), her staff released the transcript of her press conference:

Ms Pelosi: . . . when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general .

Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision . . .full transcript

My aunt is 92. Nearly deaf. She got it. She knew exactly what this was about. So did my mom who is 86. In fact, Nancy Pelosi is the only person I've heard of who didn't understand how radical a decision Kelso was.

 

[MaryS]

My Democrat Representative is to the left of Pelosi, according to www.acuratings.com but at least he took the right stand on this issue.

I'm amazed that there were some Republicans in the House that agreed with the eminent domain or simply didn't take a stand.

6-29-2005
Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll361.xml
YEAS 365 NAYS 33 PRESENT 18 NOT VOTING 17

The above vote seems to be "testing the waters" for a possible amendment to the constitution to protect private property.

The below vote is the one that Pelosi and some others voted against that involves $$:

6-30-2005 (Amendment authored by Scott Garrett* (R-NJ) to H R 3058
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll350.xml
231 to 89
*Garrett has a ranking of 100 per the American Conservative Union (www.acuratings.com)
links to list of all amendments to H R 3058
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d109:./temp/~bda8TGg:1[1-49](Amendments_For_H.R.3058)&./temp/~bdhBI4
Garrett Amendment:
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to enforce the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London, decided
June 23, 2005.


WOW, no great suprise that Pelosi would oppose a BIG "R" Republican from one of the most liberal states.
I think Pelosi and some others are being protective of the judges that ruled in that case because, with the exception of O'Connor, they are the most liberal on issues that are important to her top supporters.

 

[Voegelin]

MaryS...Bingo. The left will defend virtually anything courts do because so much of its agenda can only become law by judicial diktat. If they vote to ameloriate the effects of Kelso it exposes the lie that the Supreme Court always "interepts" the constitution and does not create law from thin air.

There is an ugly twist to Kelso. Technically, the New London home-owners' land was seized in 2000. Therefore, if this is the end for them, they will be paid what the land was worth five years ago, not today's value. In addition, they could be charged back rent.

 

[Corey]

MaryS...Bingo. The left will defend virtually anything courts do because so much of its agenda can only become law by judicial diktat. If they vote to ameloriate the effects of Kelso it exposes the lie that the Supreme Court always "interepts" the constitution and does not create law from thin air.

There is an ugly twist to Kelso. Technically, the New London home-owners' land was seized in 2000. Therefore, if this is the end for them, they will be paid what the land was worth five years ago, not today's value. In addition, they could be charged back rent.

The thing is...the opposite decision would have been judicial activism. Hehe.

There is a shield against this from happening...it's called electing non-corrupt officials. Most towns have recall mechanisms for councilmen too. So there is still hope for them.

 

[Voegelin]

The thing is...the opposite decision would have been judicial activism. Hehe.

No it would not. The 5th amendment applies to the states.

If states are free to violate, as Kelso says they are, the takings clause of the first amendment, then logically they should be take to violate due process, self -incrimination and double jeopardy as well.

Upholding the 5th amendment is not judicial activism. Changing the meaning of eminent domain and overriding two centuries of tradition and legal precedent, as was done in Kelso is.

The point is not even debatable. Why some on the left are attempting to twist the term "judicial activism" into something is not is a puzzle. Nobody buys it.

But hey, if liberals want to be on the side of greedy city managers and rich developers who legally steal homes out from under the poor, the elderly and the powerless, I'm fine with that.

Doing so is another stake in the heart of liberalism.

There is a shield against this from happening...it's called electing non-corrupt officials. Most towns have recall mechanisms for councilmen too. So there is still hope for them.

Then why have a Bill of Rights at all? Just make sure the good people are elected. Simple. We'll let local officials protect our right to due process, self-defense, free speech and the rest.

 

[PACKY]

The Prowler
7/5/2005
American Spectator

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi is known amongst even her Democratic colleagues as one of the less cerebral members of the House. But even her staff was stunned by her seeming inability to understand the recent Kelo Supreme Court ruling regarding governmental property seizures.

"We briefed her on it. She seemed to ask questions as though she understood it, but clearly she didn't," says a Boxer adviser on Capitol Hill. "How else to explain it?" ...

Even after the press remarks, Pelosi, according to other Democratic staffers, didn't seem to understand what the fuss was all about. "She was oblivious. She really thought she had a handle on some basic ideas about the Supreme Court, the way Congress works with the rulings of the court," says a Democratic leadership staffer. "

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8391

thats funny...thats the same thing that Republican law makers say about Bush..

 

[Voegelin]

Hmmmm....Bush is stupid. Where have I heard that before? Oh...the people he beat in the last election say it all the time.

Especially when a liberal says or does something beyond belief as was the case with this Pelosi press conference. Its a way to change the topic. Start up the "stupid" chant.

Some of what Bush the Stupid has accomplished: Three elections, three wins; three very conservative judges appointed to the Federal Bench last month and more on the way; drilling in Alaska passed; we got several tax cuts over Democratic opposition; child care tax credit expanded; drilling in the Roan; many regulations liberals had shackled our economy with rolled back; medical saving accounts expanded; IRAs expanded, first year write-offs tripled in size; tort reform passed...

So what has Nancy Pelosi and the geniuses on her side accomplished in the last 5 years?

Aside from repeating "Bush is stupid" every five minutes.

 

[PACKY]

I love BI-partsian politics....everyone gets so uppity..and defensive..
we can sit here in front of our electronic soapboxes debating but its up to us who will put money where their mouth is in terms of support for canidates and specific parties....I myself after being on CF will greatly Improve on what i donate and what I do to help push and work for canidates that I support

 

[quantumspirit]

How could you?!?!?

This story contains unnamed sources: it is obviously 100% false.

What do you expect from the American Spectator? David Brock worked for them before his left turn. Brock covers them a lot in his book The Republican Noise Machine. David Brock was the one who called Anita Hill, "a little nutty and a little (rhymes with nutty)." He also admitted to digging up knowingly false sources to discredit Hill.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

This decision was NOT unconstitutional. Just stupid. You have a right against unreasonable seizure. I say this is unreasonable but that is a subjective point and it isn't objectively conflicting. Also "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is depriving property through due process of law, and giving compensation. So this certainly doesn't violate the constituion but I find it to be a dumb, dumb ruling.

 

[quantumspirit]

The Prowler
7/5/2005
American Spectator

House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi is known amongst even her Democratic colleagues as one of the less cerebral members of the House. But even her staff was stunned by her seeming inability to understand the recent Kelo Supreme Court ruling regarding governmental property seizures.

"We briefed her on it. She seemed to ask questions as though she understood it, but clearly she didn't," says a Boxer adviser on Capitol Hill. "How else to explain it?" ...

Even after the press remarks, Pelosi, according to other Democratic staffers, didn't seem to understand what the fuss was all about. "She was oblivious. She really thought she had a handle on some basic ideas about the Supreme Court, the way Congress works with the rulings of the court," says a Democratic leadership staffer. "

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8391

Pelosi lives in California, 35 million people and "stuff happens". She's probably seen stuff like this before. It is really nothing new. And as someone else pointed out, the only way out would have been judicial activism, which would have made the Religious Right, who coined the term, look good.
Some of these liberals and democrats may have been aware of some loopholes, like the one I found today. That is, the city could just buy the property, in the name of eminent domain, then turn around and sell it to Pfizer, chalk it up to public work that they couldn't get around to, maybe because of a budget disagreement.

My solution (knock on my congressman's head!) is that the congress of each state decide whether to make an amendment preventing proxy selling of personal property to big business. The way I see it, such modifications to the US Constitution would be best done at the state level.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Oh I'd like to add that though traditionally "liberal" justices made this decision, not many among the liberal community have supported this, from what I've seen. I've seen some in my liberal/democrat groups who support it but more who do not.

 

[quantumspirit]

Oh I'd like to add that though traditionally "liberal" justices made this decision, not many among the liberal community have supported this, from what I've seen. I've seen some in my liberal/democrat groups who support it but more who do not.

...maybe both! We lefties often complain about how the media is waxing conservative, but it is nice to see that the media pointed this out so that Americans can cry to their congressmen about it.

 

[Voegelin]

I say this is unreasonable but that is a subjective point and it isn't objectively conflicting. Also "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is depriving property through due process of law, and giving compensation. So this certainly doesn't violate the constituion but I find it to be a dumb, dumb ruling.

Why did you stop quoting the 5th amendment there?

Kelso rests on the next twelve words.

The clause you cited has nothing to do with Kelso/
This was not a due process case. It was a takings case.

The ruling sure does violate the consitution. There is nothing subjective about this issue. The clause you neglected to copy and paste is very clear. Objectively clear. And has been for over 200 years.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If they give just compensation its not unconstitutional so I didn't bother posting it. They don't TAKE it they force you to sell it. Again, a dumb but not unconstitutional move.

 

[Voegelin]

The land was taken for private use. That is what makes the ruling unconstitutional.

The court changed the definition of eminent domain.

This isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

They claim it to serve the public interest, be for the public, and therefore be for public use. I don't think this is unconstitutional, just stupid.