posts that never were...er...are now :}

Blogger has been giving me a few problems lately, but now it seems as if everything is all right

^_^
I'm posting two pieces I wrote a few days ago that should have been posted on here, but I was unable at the time so, here they are :}

From Tuesday, September 20th.

As of this moment, I would like to review what we discussed in Foundations.

Miss Bergen started the conversation by bringing up the Supreme Court case that was heard and decided this past Summer; in this particular case, the local government wanted to seize a man's land (and compensate him for it, of course---they have to do that) to build a hotel upon that piece of property. Now, probably the only reason this case reached so far as the Supreme Court was because the city government pushed it; this local government wanted the hotel because it would receive a larger tax revenue. The question Miss Bergen posed was "what does Locke have to say about this (eminent domain is the proper name)?" We all searched the pages for a little while, and I don't remember us actually deciding whether or not Locke would agree to such a thing. I believe we got caught up in discussing the case itself (whether or not you would do something like that, do you think that it was right, etc.). The time finally came around when she asked the question "do you think the Supreme Court judged rightly?" I said I'd have to think through the case a little more. We decided that personal property was very important, and that we'd only give it up if it was for the common good (boosting the economy, creating jobs, widening a road, etc.). I think that a company should look for every possible way not to build a business where someone's home is before they even think about doing such a thing. After school, I talked about it with my mom for a little bit on our way to my grandma's house. She made a few points that I agree with. Firstly, she said that no one really thinks in terms of doing things for the "common good" any more (think about this in terms of what I've been saying before you go "where does that fit in?" and "why does it matter that no one else thinks of the common good? you should anyway"). Too true, unfortunately. Secondly, she brought up the point of whether or not the local economy needed a boost. This is an important point, because if the city wants to seize your land only because it would benefit in receiving more money in taxes, why on earth would you give up that piece of property? They're just being greedy. She also made a third point, but my memory is going because it's late....bummer. Oh well. I don't believe that the Supreme Court ruling was right, because in this particular case the city was being very greedy and (I hate using sound bites, but...) was trying to take away from the little guy.

...and this is the follow-up to that post...

Wednesday, September 21st.

I just heard from Mr. John Eastman, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University, that the end of the 5th Amendment is to be interpreted directly. It says that man shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Okay, I have the solution to the problem. Mr. Eastman stated that this (taken for public use) is to be interpreted as public use, not public benefit. So if a road needs to be built or expanded, or a military base needs to go where your property is, fine. But if a hotel is going there, and the city and public is going to benefit from it, it's not okay. It's wrong. This statement ends my thinking. The Supreme Court ruled unjustly.