…Tomato, to-mah-to. I mean, reasonable people can disagree, right? And what is the law if not the reasonable reading of a “text” (with the pretend stance that we are doing so) irrespective of its intent?
[…] according to the Supreme Court of Virginia, “all presumptions are in favor of the validity of the exercise of municipal power.” And therein lies the real problem with eminent domain in Virginia.
If you get arrested for a criminal offense, the burden of proof rests with the government. It has to convince a judge or jury that you are guilty. If the prosecutor can’t provide enough convincing evidence, then you walk — even if you never say word one in your own defense.
But when the government decides it wants to seize your property, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it shouldn’t. And thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo, all government officials need to do is come up with a theory that tearing down your house to make way for future development might, someday, bring in greater tax revenue than you pay. This qualifies as a “public purpose,” which the Supreme Court has said is the same as the “public use” required for a taking under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Or at least it’s close enough for government work. And when a municipality makes that claim, the courts simply accept it at face value — whether it’s the ironclad truth or a tissue of lies.
[my emphasis]
In other words, all the government need do, now that the SCOTUS has enabled the extension of “use” to “purpose” in the purview of legal interpretation, is create a narrative under which a reasonable person could conceive of its taking as being put to a “public purpose” — which, naturally, expands upon itself exponentially as the government expands its reach, be it into health care, or the auto industry, or mortgages, or banking, or the press.
Or, to put it another way, what comes to count as “reasonable” expands with every change in surrounding context, and with every new incarnation of government agents desiring to take by appealing to “purpose”.
Language based on the drift of signifiers and consensus meaning is a house of cards; and what we continue to see as a result of certain ideas about interpretation is that once we dismiss intent for “reasonable” re-writings, we eventually reach the point where what once meant something specific to those who proposed and passed it ultimately comes to mean something general that can be used by anyone for nearly any purpose.
When something means everything it eventually means nothing. And as conventional usage expands to create a breadth of legitimate “meanings,” what is constrained by convention becomes vanishingly small — at least, when all convention need do is justify itself to the reasonable interpreter who is “legitimately” unencumbered by appeals to what a text under examination actually meant to mean.
And so it goes.
A few states constitutionally restrict public purpose to really mean public purpose. It won’t stop the feds, but it will stop everyone else.
Change your state constitution. Pass a statute. It can be done to curtail this abuse.
Shouldn’t patently unconstitutional rulings constitute impeachable offenses by the jurists responsible?
Since Washington D.C. is an annual tax drain to the tune of trillions of dollars, I think we could bulldoze the lot and put up a 100 sq. mi. theme park called “Libertyland”. Think of the cost savings!
This is crazy. Aside from having to essentially prove a negative, and the hijacking of use to mean purpose in the courts findings; the state now simply has to arbitrarily make up an impact study stating that they will recieve greater tax revenues over time to evict you from your home.
Time was when emminent domain was only used in the most serious instances, like when a road that would benefit hundreds was held up my one individual; who may or may not have simply been looking to increase the bid price.
Whatever happened to our right to private property?
I second Darth Rove’s proposal at #2, with one stipulation. Let’s just throw all the current bumz out, and not bulldoz all of the beautiful architecture and parks. I mean, we’ll need the infrastructure for the theme park anyway, right?
In light of Bob and Darth’s proposals, I hereby retract my suggestion to nuke DC from orbit. And for a little extra fun, the “Public Servants” can work there for minimum wage dealing with the tourists!
I mean, why evict them when you’ve got a perfectly good workforce already in place?
Who’s to say. When a singer provides interpretation to an old song, varying tone and tempo to good effect, it’s like bringing new meaning to old words. Think of it as conservation of words. We won’t need so many new ones if we can just recast the old.
Private property ceased to exist when the government starting taxing it. All they needed was an excuse to take it away. No one truly owns their home, or indeed any other land.
One thing to always remember is that it was the liberal block of justices that decided the government can have it easy to take your property, and it’s the conservative block that was horrified by the idea.
So welfare benefits are part of a Constitutional Property Right to the Thurgood Marshall school o’ thinkers, but your home…bah! Merely in the way of the Good of the State.
A new arrangement to an old song is a different text.
Not that I care any more. Believe whatever the fuck it is you want to believe, people. You have that right. Because it’s all about you. The world exists as an extension of your will. Bend it as you see fit. You’ve earned at least that much power, haven’t you?
The world exists as an extension of your will. Bend it as you see fit. You’ve earned at least that much power, haven’t you?
Ima gonna stop that tide
Ima gonna stop that tide
I am the one I have been waiting for!
We won’t need so many new ones if we can just recast the old.
I see you’ve mastered the principles of Newspeak
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
It still boggles my mind that Scalia signed on to that festering sore that is Kelo.
8. Comment by jls on 6/1 @ 10:30 am #
Who’s to say. When a singer provides interpretation to an old song, varying tone and tempo to good effect, it’s like bringing new meaning to old words. Think of it as conservation of words. We won’t need so many new ones if we can just recast the old.
9. Comment by Jeff G. on 6/1 @ 12:08 pm #
A new arrangement to an old song is a different text.
Not the same.
Arrange the song any way you’d like, it’s still the same song. And the composer will get the credit and royalties, until whenever, to prove it.
They take your house, and your equity application on the deed which no longer exists won’t get past the loan officer.
The more appropriate musical analogy here is when John Fogerty was sued by his ex record label, attempting to make him stop producing records that would sound like John Fogerty because they sounded like old John Fogerty records they still claimed partial license to.
Kelo happened in small steps. Public Use really did mean something once long ago. Now it just means, “whatever”.
You can complain or you can fix it. Most people really do care about property rights. You could get the public behind this to change the law, or better yet, change the constitution (certainly on state level and maybe even federally).
We are doomed. Doomed, I say.
Josh’s father should thank the principal for the warning away from that school and see to it his child never returns to such a wretched place.
But when the other boys started talking about it at Harmon Elementary, Josh was called into the principal’s office, and ultimately suspended. He was sent home on Thursday.
“The principal told me that he was suspended for his intent to bring the knife to school.
I’d like to meet the mind that conceived that idea just to see if they drool standing still.
I dunno about that, but I would bet that they have one of those stupid “Coexist” bumper stickers on their Prius.
BMoe, I thought you were joking.
We are so fucked.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The meaning of my words are mine and mine alone.” He harrumpted.
“Is it because of the Intentionalism?” asked Alice.
“No, If i choose to interpret by decoding the signs and signifiers to discover the intent of the communicator” then so be it “but if my purpose so disposes me i may choose to apply my interpretive skills and so release the meaning inherent in the words rather than be bound by the oppression of the intended”
“The battle is with the Truth!” Humpty declares.
Next time that kid finds a knife on the way to school, he should take it with him and use it to stab that idiot Principal in the face.
let’s all “coexist” with the turkish caliphate.
Comment by BJTexs on 6/1 @ 1:55 pm #
It still boggles my mind that Scalia signed on to that festering sore that is Kelo.
BJTexs, you can unboggle. Scalia signed on to the dissent in Kelo, not the majority opinion.
Am I dumb or are there like 3 things happening in this comment thread? Did I miss something? I thought this was about imminent domain??
Alex….that happens in some threads. Topics split off and such. You are not dumb for noticing the divergence.
First off, just because we make rules saying something is so doesn’t mean it is so. Rules prove rules.
Second, I said the text was different. Whether or not you want to argue the song is different will depend on how you define a song. On one hand, changing arrangement is a lot like changing the font — inasmuch as the signifiers remain identical but for cosmetic changes, we assume that the song remains the same. However, it is just as plausible that someone could re-do a song and infuse it with entirely new meaning without changing the signifiers at all.
I can’t think of any examples off the top of my head, but I imagine there are instances where a song is entirely ironized by the new arrangement, arranger, and performer.
A possible example, complements of sdferr.
Another.
Hell, just look at Clapton’s Layla. The first is raucous, fiery, raging from a guy whose heart is leading him around at a hundred miles an hour. The later, Unplugged version is wistful, thoughtful ruminations from a guy who’s been through a lot and is seeing things from a new perspective.
Same words, same chords, same artist, but very different songs.
Nice, Pablo.
In much of the debate the text is the same but the meanings are different. To interpret is to discover the meaning created by the intender but it can also mean to create meaning through personalized artistic expression.
The word “interpret” carries both meanings. In day to day conversation we can slide from one to the other without problem but when the question is “authorship” the choice is determinative.
It’s easy to go in circles or talk past each other when the words we use have diametrically oppose meanings.
Then there’s this:
A different problem.
As Reality Unfolds About Flotilla, World Media Continues with Fictional Narrative
Obviously the Israeli’s should moderate their response to avoid being mis-characterized.
Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds on that very subject, jls
“This is why people chiding Israel for poor PR miss the point. It doesn’t really matter what they do, since the press will just lie about it. That seems an argument for much less restraint, rather than more. . . . ” [emphasis added]
Maybe the Isrealis should try for the nuanced ambiguity of torpex (do they still call it that?) next time. It seems to work for the Norks.
…since the press will just lie about it.
Lot of that going around lately!
Good call, Squid. Same dude telling the same story in 2 different places in life. It means two different things, to him. One from before he
fuckedmarried her, one from after. I’d never really though of it that way, but I’m glad I have now.That he reworked Layla in the same project that produced Tears in Heaven is a whole ‘nother matter.