Lessons from the Kelo Decision

Hopefully the Kelo decision will make it easier to get Justices approved who will interpret the Constitution, not legislate.

 

Yeah, Democrat McNamarra was a cold-hearted liberal. He was long gone before the end of the war. The political will for victory was lost under Johnson, also a liberal. He placed rules of engagement against our troops for a long time; someone wrote that Johnson was much more interested in domestic issues than the war. He started bombing campaigns and then suspended them for long periods and then started them again over and over. You have to fight a war full out.

It is possible that Nixon could have tried to win. Once the draft was ended, the war protests stopped. So Nixon could have continued in order to protect South Viet Nam from the communist bloodbath that followed our retreat. After Watergate, Nixon no longer had any politcal power and Ford was defeated for pardoning Nixon. So what we ended up with was capitulation and compromise as we had in Korea.

Hopefully, the rank and file Democrats will support the troops in Iraq till victory, Daisy.

 

That's right, but was he a liberal?

Except that is NOT all he did, was it? The anti-Vietnam War activists were not necessarily or even mostly "Communist sympathizers"; they were people who considered the war unwinnable, the slaughter of their sons, brothers, uncles and husbands tragic and the bombing of Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia indefensible.

It was a war of containment. We didn't want to own South Vietnam.

Many radicals, such as the Chicago Seven, thought the government was corrupt for lying about the war...were they wrong?

 

1) Everyone who is a libertarian(small l) ideologically is not a member of the Libertarian Party(capital L). Ronald Reagan was pretty much a libertarian ideologically. The Constitution Party is pretty much libertarian ideologically.

2) I think you are confusing libertinism with libertarianism.

 

"Many radicals, such as the Chicago Seven, thought the government was corrupt for lying about the war...were they wrong?"

Of course! They were all proven wrong when the communists started murdering the innocent after our pull-out. The bloodbath still goes on today.

 

So the Johnson's government was not corrupt for lying about the war?

Wars generally do result in the deaths of innocents and of innocence.

 

Being a Republican, I am not as aware of Democrat lies as you may be, Daisy, since you have a steady diet of them, huh? Johnson wanted compromise but he unleashed a communist bloodbath that goes on to this day. Do you ever read about the murders and arrests of Christians in Viet Nam?

 

So, am I to believe that Vietnam was a good cause corrupted by the "Communist sympathizers?"

 

Your comment makes no sense. You were an adult during the Johnson administration, were you not? You were there and aware. Or were you there and oblivious?

Being a Republican, you would be more likely to be critical of a Democratic administration's flaws, I'd think.

{i]Johnson[/i] wanted to compromise? What would be the nature of that compromise?

Nixon was the quitter, not Johnson.

No...source?

 

Ok, Johnson had a credibility gap and no one paid any attention to him. You could tell when he was lying because his lips moved.

It was his actions that worsened the war and caused the loss of political will. Johnson was not interested in the war but his domestic programs to end poverty. The compromise that he wanted was along the lines of Korea--a split into two nations of one nation and a truce instead of military victory.

By the time Nixon came to power, the public had turned against the war. Nixon wanted to go into Cambodia, etc., but the public was enraged at the idea after 6 or 8 years of failure to win. Looking back, I think that Nixon should have said that we were going to attack North Viet Nam all out and that we would chase them down in Cambodia and Laos and that we were going to have total victory.

The persecution of Christians is an earmark of any communist society. The bloodbath in the south started as soon as we left. The internet is full of information about human rights abuse in Viet Nam. Here is just one link:

http://www.fva.org/2005/06Jun/story01.htm

 

So, am I to believe that Vietnam was a good cause corrupted by the "Communist sympathizers?" </font>[/QUOTE]It was corrupted by Communist sympathizers; Jane Fonda comes to mind. Then there were the appeasers like Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Ed Muskie. I believe that Teddy was too busy acting like Clinton to have any impact.

 

I didn't read Ron Paul's article but I did read the decision linked HERE. I must admit that the Court's opinion seemed reasonable at first but O'Connor wrote what I thought was a devastating dissent, which was then topped by Thomas's dissent. It reminds me of the need for President Bush to appoint a no-nonsense Justice for O'Connor's, and later for Rehnquist's seats. With a "compromise" choice like Souter, we'll be for more bad decisions.

 

Hey, ftr! Haven't seen you around for a while...having a good summer, I hope. Thanks for the link - I've been too lazy to look it up for myself.

 

Hi Daisy! It's great to be on the same thread, after several days away, with two of my favorite liberals (and people), you and BiR (I almost added poncho in there, and didn't only because every time I think he's a liberal he surprises the heck out of me!).

Summer's going good. Just started a new job about a month ago in Birmingham, an hour and a half down the road, so the extra three hours a day on the road has kicked my extra time in the butt. Am thoroughly enjoying the job, though, handling automobile injury claims for Nationwide Insurance, had worked for Progressive for 18 years before leaving there in December.

I hope you'll read the decision. SC opinions are one of my favorite things to read, at least on topics that interest me (abortion, church-state, death penalty, speech issues). I've been wondering what "the liberal" opinion is on Kelo, as I'm not sure how squarely liberals stand on property rights (not to be contentious, I just don't know). Just finished reading the two 10C decisions and working my down to hopefully finding a thread on that topic (I hate being in more than one thread on the same topic).

Take care, Daisy, and thanks for the note.

 

Elitest liberal/leftist care only about power at the expense of the rest of us.

 

BACK TO THE TOPIC: most don't understand the implications. The two edged sword swings both ways. Consider the Salt Lake City valley in Utah. There are housing developments going up like crazy and every one has a Mormon Church in the center. Say a gentile wanted to build a development without a Mormon Church. Under Kelo the local govt could decide that there was an economic advantage of having a Mormon Church in that community.

But if it was a theonomist run city council they could decide to confiscate a block of taverns for the OPC to build a church.

 

New York has taken a step in the right direction - legislation was introduced today to restrict the State's ability to use eminent domain so easily. Among other things, 150% of market price would have to be paid if private property were transferred from the unwilling owner.