Justice Souter’s Land May Be Seized to Illustrate Eminent Domain Rulings Mistake
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
When the Supreme Court ruled that governments could seize land for economic development, they raised the ire of many Americans who recognize that private property rights are a basic foundation of the country. So it is with great glee that I ran report this story out of Vermont.
Angered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sided with a Connecticut city that wanted to seize homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the justices who voted for the decision evicted from his own home.
The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter’s home seized for the purpose of building an inn called “Lost Liberty Hotel.”
They submitted enough petition signatures — only 25 were needed — to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they’re descending on Souter’s hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support. via WHDH-TV.
I would love the people of Weare, New Hampshire to vote for the condemnation of Judge Souters property. This would send a signal to the elites that the laws apply to all Americans equally. We have too many people think they know whats best, and are willing to tell others what to do with their property.
To the point of even taking a mans house for anothers profit.
More for Rob Port at Wizbang:
I wouldn’t plan on making reservations at the hotel at this point. The Weare town council isn’t about to use the powers just handed them (and every other local politician in the nation) to do something which exposes the potential for abuse of those same powers. But still, if all this does is wake some Americans up to the stupidity of exapnding eminent domain powers to “economic development” projects it will be well worth it.


Comment by Robert Coté on 23 January 2006:
When this first came up I e-mailed the City Cuoncil with the following suggestion:
Go through with the hearings. If Souter shows up in person lecture him that just because he doesn’t respest the Constitution the town does and does so to an extent that they are willing to protect the rights of people who don’t repspect theirs. No Lost Liberty Inn. If Souter does not show up in person then lecture in abstentia that anyone who who cares so little for the Democratic process that they don’t show up deserves what they get. Anyone who values freedom so little doesn’t value their property and the Council finds the property worth $1 and awards it to the Lost Liberty Inn.