Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Because he doesn't know a **** thing about local land use law?

Not that it's really local - the fact that you can't craft a local law to allow a Catholic Church but not an Islamic Mosque shouldn't be too hard for Krauthammer to understand.

What's new? Krauthammer is a fool. He once had some claim to integrity - but it's been 20 years since he stopped caring about it.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

If they did that why would you need the Supreme Court at all Shirtless? As long as they can justify the law in the Constitution you have basically taken away the check the SCOTUS (and the Judicial Branch) has over the Legislative Branch. Sorry but that goes against the whole point of checks and balances.

Times change, values change and rules change. When the Executive and Legislative are slow to act it is up to the Judicial to do so when given the opportunity. They aren't all powerful, they are checked too, that is the beauty of the system.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

If they did that why would you need the Supreme Court at all Shirtless? As long as they can justify the law in the Constitution you have basically taken away the check the SCOTUS (and the Judicial Branch) has over the Legislative Branch. Sorry but that goes against the whole point of checks and balances.

Times change, values change and rules change. When the Executive and Legislative are slow to act it is up to the Judicial to do so when given the opportunity. They aren't all powerful, they are checked too, that is the beauty of the system.

I disagree, the congress should explain why they think they can write the law, the courts can still decide whether or not their belief is "right." If congress passes a law saying I can't pump my own gas because the gas pumping workers jobs are protected by the commerce clause, the supreme court can still say nope, you're over reacting the commerce clause. Times might change and values as well but the law is the law. You can't just change the law because you feel like it. You also can't change the law to protect the little guy just because he's fighting the big guy when the law is on the big guys side. The whole point of the courts is to uphold the law.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

@shirtlessguy

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with the case. But if DeBeers dumps 17 metric craploads of diamonds onto the South African market, you can be sure that it will have more than a slight effect on the international market. If you decrease the demand for wheat in place x, it will affect the price of wheat in places w,y,z, and everywhere else in the country where wheat is traded.

I can see how upholding the law would justify finding against the farmer. Whether the law was a good idea to begin with . . . I wouldn't want to touch that.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

It's obvious to me that he wasn't mentioning it as a means of stopping the building of the mosque.

As it is to anyone reading what he wrote with an open mind. Unfortunately, blockski is too obsessed with his theory that conservatives want government to put a stop to it.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

@shirtlessguy

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not familiar with the case. But if DeBeers dumps 17 metric craploads of diamonds onto the South African market, you can be sure that it will have more than a slight effect on the international market. If you decrease the demand for wheat in place x, it will affect the price of wheat in places w,y,z, and everywhere else in the country where wheat is traded.

I can see how upholding the law would justify finding against the farmer. Whether the law was a good idea to begin with . . . I wouldn't want to touch that.

How does me growing food in my own backyard for my own personal use have anything to do with interstate commerce? How would me digging up diamonds in my own backyard and keeping them for myself, have anything to with interstate commerce?

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

.................

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

.......

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

I disagree, the congress should explain why they think they can write the law, the courts can still decide whether or not their belief is "right."

I take you've never read any federal statutes. Not exactly works of art, or logic. When you have over 500 chimps throwing their personal feces into the legislative process you don't get very clean results. Moreover, Congress will often purposely draft broad and vague provisions so courts and regulators can clean up after them. Healthcare and financial "reform" are two recent, prime examples. Fortunately, their laziness and stupidity will keep guys like me employed for generations.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Speaking of that, Rand Paul has said he will introduce a bill requiring Congress to explicitly point out their Constitutional authority for every law they pass.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38673

There's an audio clip there of the imam comparing the US and al qaeda, among other things.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Speaking of that, Rand Paul has said he will introduce a bill requiring Congress to explicitly point out their Constitutional authority for every law they pass.

Boy, I can't wait for the liberal caterwauling over that. After all, the Constitution is such a drag, putting so many limits on what the government can't do to you. Darn negative liberties.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Speaking of that, Rand Paul has said he will introduce a bill requiring Congress to explicitly point out their Constitutional authority for every law they pass.

I like it.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Speaking of that, Rand Paul has said he will introduce a bill requiring Congress to explicitly point out their Constitutional authority for every law they pass.

There is a reason I brought it up

I take you've never read any federal statutes. Not exactly works of art, or logic. When you have over 500 chimps throwing their personal feces into the legislative process you don't get very clean results. Moreover, Congress will often purposely draft broad and vague provisions so courts and regulators can clean up after them. Healthcare and financial "reform" are two recent, prime examples. Fortunately, their laziness and stupidity will keep guys like me employed for generations.

Does that really mean they shouldn't have to say why they think they can make a law. Don't you think they shouldn't be lazy, they should know what they are putting in a bill before they pass it. Don't you think they should clean up legislation and require only germane items to be placed in a bill?

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

Again, I say, so?

Didn't smoke and ash and crap from this fall all over New Jersey? Is that now hallowed ground too?

No. The wind was blowing West -> East.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

No. The wind was blowing West -> East.

That clears that up. No mosques in the atlantic ocean.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

The building was worth some $18 million before 9/11. A big reason that Burlington Coat Factory moved out of the building was the severe damage it sustained when the landing gear and fuselage landed on it. It ended up selling for $4 million.

But no, there's no connection to 9/11 with this building, of course not.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

His argument against building the mosque is due to his belief that GZ is hallowed ground and that a monument to a religion practiced by a group of people responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents at that site doesn't belong there any more than a Japanese cultural center belongs at Pearl Harbor or a Catholic convent belongs at Auschwitz. In short, it's about respect for the victims.

The mention of zoning law in his column was done to illustrate the fact that we don't have unrestricted rights to build what we want on our own land - that our ability to build is strongly regulated by local government. It's obvious to me that he wasn't mentioning it as a means of stopping the building of the mosque.

That's not really what he said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

No liquor store near schools - that's a categorical ban. Yet, we've seen people say that they would allow a house of worship for a different faith on this site. Likewise, we already have a mosque nearby. These defeat the very categorical ban (which must apply evenly and equally). Krauthammer's logic implies that some liquor stores would be OK, but not others - those that sell Miller products are cool, but Coors? Forget it.

Convent at Auschwitz - that was a decision made by the Pope. If he wants to talk about his vision of decency, that's fine - but it has nothing to do with land use law.

Commercial tower at Gettysburg - Krauthammer might want to check his facts here. Many people opposed building it, but it was on private land. The Park Service and others sued to prevent them from building it and lost. It was built in 1974 and only demolished when the NPS added that land to the park grounds via eminent domain in 2000, paying fair compensation to the land owners. I have no idea how Krauthammer thinks this particular example suits his point. Good luck getting a judge to approve an eminent domain seizure of a mosque because someone doesn't like it.

As it is to anyone reading what he wrote with an open mind. Unfortunately, blockski is too obsessed with his theory that conservatives want government to put a stop to it.

From this whole discussion, two things are explicitly clear:

1. They have every right to build a mosque on this site;
2. You don't like it.

I think conservative opposition to this is wrong-headed because it's blatantly in violation of one of the core principles of our nation. There are plenty of other reasons why opposing this is a bad idea, but you're free to do so.

Why you don't like it is more or less irrelevant. They have the right, and that right is a fundamental one in our nation - and it certainly trumps any ill feelings you might have.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

From this whole discussion, two things are explicitly clear:

1. They have every right to build a mosque on this site;
2. You don't like it.

I think conservative opposition to this is wrong-headed because it's blatantly in violation of one of the core principles of our nation. There are plenty of other reasons why opposing this is a bad idea, but you're free to do so.

Why you don't like it is more or less irrelevant. They have the right, and that right is a fundamental one in our nation - and it certainly trumps any ill feelings you might have.

I can't argue with you on those 2 bullet points. The biggest issue to me would be why the nps didn't decide to protect this building. The other issue is that it is completely american to voice our dislike of this building turning into a mosque so close to ground zero.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

I think conservative opposition to this is wrong-headed because it's blatantly in violation of one of the core principles of our nation.

Freedom of speech, yes. We get it. I forgot that in the Age of Obama, dissent is NOT patriotic.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XIV: President VISTA with SP2

How does me growing food in my own backyard for my own personal use have anything to do with interstate commerce? How would me digging up diamonds in my own backyard and keeping them for myself, have anything to with interstate commerce?

See - this is where not knowing the case makes it hard to comment.

In your first post, you mentioned that the farmer guy was busted for producing over quota. I interpreted that as: quota = personal use. What would you do with over quota crops? Maybe you'd use them to barter with the guy growing stuff that you don't grow . . . I dunno. Point is, if the law was meant to raise crop prices, then surplus amounts defeat the purpose - off-market surplus crops decrease the demand for those crops on the open market. Demand goes down, prices go down, object and purpose of legislation is defeated.

Again, none of this is to say that the law was good policy to begin with. I'm waay too ignorant of that case, and ag policy in general, to say anything about that.