As many know, the Kelo v. New London decision widened the capacity of government to take private land through eminent domain. We at the Conspiracy believe the clause written into the US Constitution providing for eminent domain seizure for "public use" was a blunder by the Founders. It has always been open to a wider enterpretation, moving into "public good", and supporting seizure to allow for private development. With this seizure and development, politicians can claim that the increased tax revenues will eventually be used for the "public good", and thus the action is, according to them, perfectly legitimate.

The Coalition of NH Taxpayers (www.cnht.org) got on top of the Kelo decision early on. They have successfully shown that it could be possible to have Supreme Court Justice David Souter's home in Weare taken, to have the property turned into a park, easily depicted as "public use". Their efforts have been much more organized than those of Logan Darrow Clements, a California man who would like to have Souter's property seized in order to erect a hotel.

This is the editor's introduction to a very informative piece by Ed Naile, Chairman of CNHT. In the article, Ed explains where things stand in Weare. We will feature more on Souter, the abstract idea of eminent domain, and whether seizure of Souter's land is ethically and morally acceptable. For now, read on, and click the link to read Ed's entire article. http://freestateblogs.net/node/244

From Free State Blogs:

For those who are wondering what CNHT's take is on the recent development in Weare, NH. concerning Logan Darrow Clements, our Chair Ed Naile has written a piece about it.

Background: Immediately after the Supreme Court (David Souter, Stephen Breyer, both NH property owners) voted to allow the city of New London, Conn. to take private property through eminent domain for the purpose of commercial development, (Kelo vs. New London) Ed and other board members, in response to a plea for help from the citizens of Weare, crafted a petitioned warrant article which if passed by vote of the townspeople, would compensate Justice David Souter for his property and then use the property to set up a public 'Constitution Park'. The petition was submitted and accepted and a fund set up to finance the park. The idea was that Supreme Court Justices ought to live by their own rules. By the way, when the records of Stephen Breyer were obtained by CNHT shortly after, it was found that he was paying much less in taxes than a neighbor with a similar parcel. A bit of government favoritism? Who knows. Meanwhile, along comes Logan Darrow Clements who sends a fax to the Town of Weare, and starts on his campaign, threatening to 'sue' the selectmen and/or 'clear away the laws'. We are now wondering what Clements' agenda really was; did he lose this issue on purpose? - Editor