Lamont Wins!
Posted by Nathan Kilbert on August 08, 2006 at 10:15PM
DeStefano, too, probably, although that hasn't been called by the networks yet. Out of the 266 thousand votes likely to be cast in the gubernatorial primary, Destefano already has 132 k, while Malloy is at 128.6 k.
Now that the primaries are over, it's time for all Democrats to come together and support our nominees. It seems like a certain senator won't be doing that, though. Thinks he's special, that he doesn't have to listen to the will of the voters in the highest-turnout primary in over a decade. That's all right -- Lamont will beat him a second time.
Comments
I don't see that Ned Lamont has taken a stand on eminent domain, so I sent him an email via his staff.
To the staff:
I notice that Mr. Lamont hasn't said much about eminent domain, at least I don't find much on the website. Since I am publishing a book (linked below) this fall on the response to Kelo, someone on the staff handling this issue might be interested in the results I have found. Can you please forward this email to that staff member?
It certainly helps if you have some legal background (I got my JD in 1985). The Supreme Court recognizes a process by which public opinion recognizes facts which are unchanging facts of human experience, facts which don't change no matter how government tries to destroy them. When public opinion identifies such facts, it removes them from the political system and turns absolute control of them over to the individual. This, for example, is the history of freedom from an establishment of religion.
The eminent domain movement--although it contains plenty of right-wing crackpots--nevertheless represents a trend in mainstream, suburban opinion. Suburbia has decided that certain facts are like freedom from an establishment of religion, and it wants them removed from the political system and turned over to the control of the individual. This desire is being expressed in a confused way in the anti-eminent domain movement, but it certainly behooves someone on Mr. Lamont's staff to come to terms with that movement and brief him on the underlying thinking.
The facts are medical care, liberty, maintenance, education and housing. For example, currently the Supreme Court (in Lindsey v. Normet) says that government can involve itself in housing as long as the policy is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. That's minimum scrutiny for housing. Housing currently enjoys only minimum scrutiny as it relates to eminent domain.
People want that level raised much MUCH higher--certainly in the eminent domain context, but that is just the beginning. It wants the level of scrutiny for housing raised in EVERY context. That's what is important about understanding the anti-eminent domain movement. This is a huge change from usual health and welfare regulation, and the political system is only just beginning to cope with it.
So, if I were Mr. Lamont and I was questioned about eminent domain, I would say that people want increased power over facts which are important to them. If he wants to be bolder, he could say that people are in the process of removing facts which are important to them, from the political system and asserting individual control over those facts.
I realize that Connecticut is up to its eyeballs in eminent domain corruption and that the legislature failed to make any changes in the law, but frankly, the writing is on the wall: minimum scrutiny for the facts I have listed above (all of which currently enjoy only minimum scrutiny) is over. Suburbia won't stand for it anymore. It wants expanded individually enforceable rights.
I realize the Democratic establishment doesn't want to hear this, for every reason from "Government does good things" to the fact that government is a big money funnel to private interests. But Mr. Lamont should make it clear--and can make it clear--that he understands that change is under way to shift control over important facts to people themselves. This is a very big change--certainly the greatest social policy change since the New Deal and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish--and he should show that he is aware of it.
Cordially yours,
John Ryskamp
Ryskamp, John Henry, "The New Constitution: The Eminent Domain Revolt and the Fourth Constitutional Epoch" (December 29, 2005). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=562521 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.562521
Posted by Moris | August 18, 2006 12:46 PM | Permalink
Need some help with at a Republic site ...can you
http://politicalparley.proboards50.com/index.cgi?board=politicalparley
Whatever you can do would be appreciated.
Posted by kevin | August 14, 2007 02:55 AM | Permalink
Eminent domain will begin to be a bigger issue as real estate developing increases in this country. What can be done to make eminent domain justifiable as outlined in the Constitution? In rural areas it is not likely to be discussed as much because there are not as many people who may have an interest in a piece of land in question as opposed to bigger cities.
kevin
http://www.gostudentsavings.com/
Page URL is
© 2002- Yale College Democrats. All rights reserved.
