Congress looking to put penalties on state and local governments that usurp private property rights
By Norman Leahy | Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 | Policy, PoliticsAs the proposed constitutional amendment to further strengthen Virginia’s private property rights moves toward its first legislative hearings of the session, it looks like Congress, too, is taking up the cudgels. Lost amidst the flurry of State of the Union activity, the House Judiciary committee yesterday approved HR 1433, the “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011.” This measure would, according to a press release from one of the measure’s co-sponsors, Rep. Bob Goodlatte:
…prevent [state and local] governments from taking property from one private entity and giving it to another private entity. When abuses occur, this legislation will prohibit localities and states from receiving federal economic assistance on all economic development projects, not just those upon which abuses occur, for two years for each violation.
While this legislation cracks down hard on private-private transfers, it would not prohibit the use of eminent domain for traditional, purely public purposes.
Virginia’s proposed amendment would go further than this bill, but it is still interesting to see Congress get into the property rights act. This bill passed committee 23-5, so it’s support really is bipartisan. Looking down the list of co-sponsors, we see not only Mr. Goodlatte, but Rep. Randy Forbes and…Democrat Maxine Waters.
That shouldn’t be a complete surprise (though it is amusing). Those whose property rights are most frequently abused aren’t the wealthy and connected, but the poor and marginalized. They rarely, if ever, have the ability to fight condemnation proceedings and thus are perceived as easy targets.
While it is still much better that states address property rights concerns, we do have to recall that it was the federal courts that gave us the Kelo ruling. If this bill adds a measure of protection in those areas where state governments haven’t offered their own protections (as Virginia has), then great. Perhaps this will prod them into action.
But don’t take your eye off Virginia’s amendment. I spoke with Sen. Mark Obenshain about this last night and he’s fairly confident it will clear the Senate’s Privileges and Elections committee. But he doesn’t think it will be unanimous, with bipartisan support both for and against it. He also thinks that local government lobbyists have been spreading unfounded “fears” about the measure, which could sway some legislators.
Obenshain made it clear that he has considered every possible objection to the amendment and found them wanting. That doesn’t mean, though, that the fireworks, horror stories and such and such won’t be unleashed during hearings. Still, current prospects are favorable that the amendment will reach the Senate floor intact. And that’s where the real show will begin.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
40 Responses to "Congress looking to put penalties on state and local governments that usurp private property rights"
To think we need a resolution from Congress to improve upon the powerful words of James Madison included in the Constitution, and those of James Madison and George Mason in the Virginia Constitution, is ridiculous on its face. This is a simple political tactic by republicans to scare people and drive them to the polls.
That said, that is what is being pursued in the General Assembly to the detriment of Virginia’s local governments, and Virginia’s businesses that are here, and those we hope to attract.
Kelo simply confirmed that states have the right to define public use. In Virginia, that term is well defined by statute, and by a body of legal precedent and decision based upon more that 200 years of Judicial experience and application. The definition of public use adopted in Connecticut never applied in Virginia.
This proposed amendment will throw all of that out the window. It is poorly crafted, it is unnecessary, it has dire consequences for economic development, and it is a budget buster.
The chances of condemnation for most homeowners is infinitesimal, but the chances of higher taxes to pay higher awards to rich commercial land owners if this bill passes is 100%.
The U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution protect the property rights of our citizens now and neither should not be changed. MJB sends!
Mike, aren’t you a “rich” commercial developer who is using the current system to prey on the “little people”? Hypocrisy becomes you….
Mr. Barrett rejects the need for the proposed constitutional amendment in part because of his confidence that “public use” is well defined in state law, “public use” being the principal brake on eminent domain excess. He asserts that the definition of “public use” that spawned the Kelo case in Connecticut “never applied in Virginia.”
Mr. Barrett apparently is unaware that Virginia has had two of its own Kelo cases. Before the General Assembly adopted the anti-Kelo reforms of 2007, Roanoke cited “public use” to confiscate a floor covering shop so the land could be turned over for an office building for the city’s biggest employer. Similarly, Norfolk condemned a Hampton Boulevard defense contractor so the land could be turned over for a shopping center for ODU students.
And even the more restrictive definition of “pubic use” in the 2007 law hasn’t stopped Arlington from announcing its intentions to take a high-rise office and apartment building for use as a homeless shelter.
If Mr. Barrett had owned the Roanoke shop, the Norfolk defense business, or the Arlington high rise — or been aware of how “public use” had been misused against them — he might not now be so confident in his opinion.
Dennis, great to hear from you. Where have you been?
In any case, thanks for proving my point. The changes in the statute that the General Assembly made after Kelo totally resolved any uncertainty in the law about public use, and there has been no issue since then.
In regard to the Arlington example, is not the provision of a homeless shelter a public use? If we as a community of citizens agree that our community needs a shelter for homeless people, are we to be restricted by the Constitution from obtaining one?
And let’s be clear; if the City decides to do so, then the U. S. Constitution, and the Constitution of Virginia requires just and fair compensation to the property owner.
Thanks Dennis for your concern about our company. We have had property taken by eminent domain on numerous cases in most cities of Hampton Roads. We have yet to be taken advantage of, and in most cases, we negotiated a fair settlement. In a few cases, we have availed ourselves of the judicial process, and while no condemnee ever feels they received enough, we have done just fine.
My point. The system works, and no amendment is necessary. Further, this amendment is poorly written, throws out 200 years of precedence, will require homeowners to subsidize the higher awards to owners of commercial property, and will stop needed road projects that have a primary nexus to economic development.
In this case, doing nothing is the best course of action.
Dennis, you can also point to this local example:
http://www.emdomain.com/articles/family/family.html
Where the city of Norfolk was trying to take land from an auto parts company and give it to Mid-Atlantic Bottling for additional parking. Why offer cash when the city will steal it for you.
It is far easier for a wealthier person or company to get just compensation. The weak unfunded without an attorney on retainer are quite a different matter. Often a localaity will announce thinking about using eminent domain on a property, but wait a long while before taking action. Meanwhile…..guess what happens to property values?
Of course an amendment should be sought after. The idea of changing the law is a real possibility if the right politician is elected. An amendment is far more of a step to take. That doesn’t sit well with people wanting to steal land for pennies on the dollar.
You and Obummer must have go to the same school, the
University Socialism and Delusion. For your small mind, let me tell you that 30 Virgina Beach tax paying citizens had their condos stolen from them by your comrades at the City. So much for your meaningless and lying assurances.
Britt, that was a low blow; I thought you were above that kind of insult.
Further, your example is a bad one because even if this amendment passes, the above case would still be a candidate for the use of eminent domain.
If the Legislature were to take away the use of eminent domain incident to blight removal, it would have effected just old cities. Now, suburban cities around the Commonwealth face similar issues. Even young cites like Virginia Beach and Chesapeake have aging retail centers built in the 1950′s that must be redeveloped, or adjoining property values will start declining.
So Britt, your example proves my point as well. This amendment is simply unnecessary, and if passes, is damaging. Thanks.
Ok Ben; sorry you are back. Civility reigned in your absence.
Care to provide more information? You say 30 condo owners had their property taken. Was it incident to the use of eminent domain for a public use? Did they negotiate with the City? Did they take advantage of the judicial system which has a time honored process for these exact claims? Are they just ticked off they did not get more money?
Otherwise, it is just like the little old lady you and Robert Dean are always referring to who was taxed out of her home. You never produced her to prove your point; I guess she was on vacation in Europe. Let’s try again.
the deal ODU struck with the city, was to have the city use its power of eminent domain to aquire the land ODU wanted for its expanision. ODU would pay the city a commission for each property they condemned. This “deal” was put into effect with no regard to wheather the property being aquired was blighted or not.
So are you suggesting that the expansion of a public university is not a public use? If so, you are taking this amendment farther that it appears to me to go. If we as free citizens and property owners in Virginia agree that a public university is a public use, ought not we have the right to use eminent domain for the expansion of this public use?
ODU’s taking of Central radio Co., a 77 year old defense contractor that employees over one hundred people is not for public use. ODU intends to turn the property into a shopping mall or fast food outlet.
Again, it is difficult to argue specific cases as some landowners and their attorneys use the press as a means to a higher award. But in theory, if a university is a public use, and the provision of shopping and dining is incident to this public use, are you saying that it is improper for a public university to have access to the use of eminent domain to expand? Should this prohibition apply to all public universities in Virginia? Are you saying they should be able to use eminent domain for education buildings but not for the ancillary services required by a university campus?
Mr. Barrett,
I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think that is exactly what Mr. Wilson is saying. You use the phrase “incident to this public use” as a euphemism for “private use.” Under the definition that you suggest, any use is public as long as it is ancillary to some other public use. Under your construction of the phrase “public use,” the City of Virginia Beach could take private property by eminent domain, turn it over to a private corporation to develop it into a shopping mall, and call the taking for public use because the mall is accessed by (and therefore ancillary to) some City-owned public streets. Or, to take a familiar example, the City could argue that it needs to take a neighborhood of homes in order for a pharmaceutical company to build a new research facility. Because the research facility would generate more tax revenue for the City, and taxing is surely a public function, the taking is legitimate because it is ancillary to the taxation.
I don’t intend to ascribe to you views that you do not hold, but that is what seems to me to be the logical extension of the views you have expressed here. Thank goodness Virginia law no longer permits that kind of abuse, but localities were careful to abuse the law right up until the 11th hour.
Well, I disagree with your conclusion but agree the questions you raise must be dealth with, and have been as part of the over 200 year history of precedence created by the court system in Virginia. As a result, landowners, lawyers, business owners, residents, have a body of law and court decision upon which to rely.
Regretfully, all this will be swept away by this amendment. Now if this amendment passes, it will take years of uncertainty to establish the limits and the body of law and precedent.
Frankly, the very issue you raise was decided in Virginia Beach in the case of the acquisition of the 31st Street parking garage. The judge ruled that while a parking garage was a public use, if 50% of it was leased to a private property owner, that was not an allowed public use, and the city was required to obtain the property by acquisition.
In the ODU case, precedent would seem to argue against your conclusion. That is, if the commercial uses were part of any overall plan to provide and support a university campus, then it would fall under the definition of public use. If it were a stand alone commercial facility, then no, it would not.
My point is, we have a body of law and precedent developed over the last 200 years. Do not throw that out for no reason at all.
Steve Clarke,
You are trying to reason with a developer who wants to use campaign contributions to get private aproperty condemned and taken at a fraction of it’s market value. Save your electricity. Mike Barrett is not an opponent to this amendment as much as he is the reason we need it.
Well Steve, I rarely comment upon an irrational insult, but while I am a real estate developer, and have been one for the last 26 years, I have never used eminent domain to acquire property. In fact, private developers do not have access to eminent domain despite what the hysterical libertarian fringe would have you believe.
If MD Russ has facts he believes back up his story about me, then post them. Otherwise, either prove your allegation, or stand accused herein by me to be a liar. Pure and simple, and hiding behind anonymity may give your courage, but to me, you are a simple coward.
Further, I have posted on this topic in earlier forums, and have said that if this amendment passes, it may benefit owners of commercial real estate who can make the case about the new category of “lost access and lost profits.” Homeowners will have no right to make such an argument.
The reason the trade association of which I am a member opposes this amendment is that while some of us may get paid more for specific pieces of property, we will all pay more real estate taxes because of the increased cost of acquiring commercial property needed for public use. Further, we fear the lost of economic development opportunity becasue needed public infrastructure will not be built.
Barrett’s assertion that property owners get a fair shake under current practices in Virginia is not an opinion, but a deliberate attempt to mislead. The protections against Kelo incursions enacted in 2007 will face an onslaught in every legislative session until we have Constitutional protections. He’s hoping the current public interest in property rights will die down, and in a few years a rider can be attached to a bill erasing all of our hard won rights.
Treating property owners fairly and upfront will save the state money. They spend more money on lawyers and lobbyists than they ever did acquiring property. It was never about money. Unfair condemnation is the ultimate power, even if it usually makes a poor investment. What good is all that money when a poor farmer like me can look him in the eye and laugh.
After a Kelo styled taking, the wealthy deveoper behind it can know with satisfaction that he has taught some people a lesson about his raw power. He has proved that the moldering paper of an old constitution couldn’t stand up to his power.
Edd Jennings
Mike,
I am hardly “hiding behind anonymity.” My name is clearly disclosed. As for being a liar, I am not in the least bit impressed or intimidated by your attempted bullying. Your motives as a developer have been completely transparent throughout this debate and it is clear that you see this amendment as a threat to your bottom line. Your claims to be concerned with the taxpayer are dishonest and laughable.
BTW, where does Councilman Jim Wood stand on ED?
Hey, Mike. I asked you a question. Are you too cowardly to answer it? I’m calling you out.
MD, read mu post on VB City Council’s actions. Wood voted for a resolution supporting the Amendment.
Of course he did, Brian. He has to stand for re-election and this is an issue that is on the voters’ radar.
However, what is his day job and who does he get his campaign contributions from?
MD Russ, your failure to back up your accusation reveals your lack of character and your lack of integrity.
Brian, I do not agree with your assertion that the vote was to support the resolution supporting the amendment.
In fact, the Moss resolution, which was the direct support of the resolution, failed. Moss’s motion to put the motions on the table failed as well.
The substitute motion, to support the language that defined some of the terms in the amendment, but which does not support the existing amendment, passed.
So your characterization that the majority that voted for the resolution that passed is in support of the proposed amendment is in error.
Mike,
Drop the silly insults. You seem to be a subject matter expert on a lack of character and integrity. What is your business relationship with Jim Wood?
The question is not going away, Michael. You have pissed me off and now I am going to out you, asshole.
Yeah, WHAT STEVE CLARKE SAID.. hehe
Two more questions for Mike Barrett:
1/ If I read his comments correctly, he believes that the taking of a high-rise building by Arlington with eminent domain for a homeless shelter (an action that would require the eviction of 80 residents of the building) and the taking by Norfolk of Central Radio so it can be turned into a shopping center for college students (so they can buy beer and pizza, presumably) fall well within his definition of public use.
Given this expansive definition, I wonder if he could identify a public purpose or public benefit for which eminent domain would be off limits.
2/ He asserts, without offering any specifics, that passage of the proposed property rights amendment would “throw out 200 years of legal precedence.” That sounds ominous. Could he elaborate?
Dennis, we have also had previous discussions relating to this topic on how commercial developers in cahoots with local government have used zoning laws to devalue and revalue properties and impose use restrictions to the detriment of the private owners. Zoning is a sneaky way around eminent domain condemnation that these commercial development predators and their political shills use which is a lot less newsworthy than a head to head legal confrontation in which property owners almost always lose.
Influence comes at a price unless people elect representatives who can’t be bought.
John Moss for Mayor
What I would say Dennis is that under the constitution of Virginia that has been in effect since it was written, a body of judicial decisions has been built up which help to define and interpret the statutes that implement the constitutional principles. The proposed amendment sweeps that away, and in its place, attempts to create new principles and new definitions, all of which will require judicial review, interpretation, and decision.
In fact, you will note that in the proposed amendment, public use is not even defined, and this amendment would require the plantiff to prove the use of eminent domain is for public use, whatever that is.
Now this will throw the use of eminent domain for public use, a basic and revered part of both the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia, into total disarray until that body of knowledge is determined. That process could take decades.
In my view, the use of eminent domain should be reserved for obtaining property, on behalf of the citizens of the jurisdiction, for specific public uses like public hospitals, buildings, parks, roads, highways, tunnels, and bridges, utility systems, libraries, schools, etc. I also support the use of eminent domain for the removal of blight subject to an approved redevelopment and conservation plan. Of course Dennis, you will note that I am simply referring to exactly the situation that exists now, so in my view, no amendment is required nor necessary.
Our founders balanced the right of ownership of private property, with the responsibility of the people, by their elected representatives, to provide the required infrastructure to support our chosen civil society. Frankly, Madison, Mason, et al. got it right. To me, the constitution does not need “improvement”, and further, the proposed amendment would curtail respoonsibilities of elected officials working in the public interest to support the interests of our citizens.
It is bad legislation and should not be passed.
Fortunately for Virginia private property owners, the collective wisdom of the majority members of the General Assembly, Mr. Barrett’s archaic stance on this issue is demented at best, perverse at it finest.
Having worked in the disabled community for over 20 years, I’ve been able to identify my fellow citizens who have reached their intellectual Peter Principle, and Mr. Mike has reached that plateau and is on the downward side. That being said, I would forewarn those who post on this site to be cognizant of Mr. Mike’s limitations and temper your level of frustration and and replace it with tolerance and sympathy. Mike isn’t well, and it’s no fault of his own.
I’m trying to ascertain if Mr. Kerwin actually read Councilman Davis’ resolution and understood its real meaning and potential impact. If Mr. Kerwin supported or opposed the resolution, one would never know, for he never appeared before Council to express support or opposition to either the original DeSteph/Moss resolution, or the substitute.
At this time I can only sit on the sideline to see if Mr. Kerwin comes down on the side of our Beach delegation, or if he’ll hold hands with Councilwoman Rosemary Wilson, who as president of Virginia Municipal League, the taxpayer-funded lobbying organization adamantly opposed to the eminent domain protection Amendment now clearing the halls of the General Assembly. If Mr. Kerwin continues to walk in harmony with Mike Barrett, he’s going to be sorely disappointed in the Amendment’s eventual outcome. Small businesses, farmers, churches and homeowners need this protection from the long arm of an intrusive government; this is a step enabling the compass rose to point to the rights of the people, not government bureaucrats.
Mr. Kerwin, please deliver this message to Mr. Barrett: Property rights representatives are ready and willing to debate this issue, anytime, anyplace. But he’s been invited to debate issues in the past, but misplaced time and time again, his spine. Perhaps that’s his real sickness.
Robert, you’ve been trying to ascertain several things for years, like which cabinet you left your meds in, how to read one of your long-winded diatribes that you swore was 3 minutes when you read it into your bathroom mirror, and how to correctly spell my name when it’s right in front of you.
I always got a chuckly out of your middle inital, though.
“K” stands for strikeout.
This forum is proof of our contention that this amendment is not ready for prime time. It has created incredible acrimony over a problem that simply does not exist. And even Brian, who is generally well informed, is now attacked for this interpretation by Robert Dean, a libertarian to whom the use of eminent domain for anything is repugnant.
I would suggest to all on this forum that you are simply ignoring the wisdom of our founders who wrote the protections of property into the constitution, but balanced that right with the obligation of the democratically elected representatives to develop infrastructure for public use. Neither right is absolute; they must work in tandem.
The proposed amendment is simply a disaster, written in haste, amended on the floor, and frankly not expected to see the light of day or pass. But it did, and we are stuck with a terrible piece of legislation that does not improve on the work of George Mason, but detracts from it.
I would even support a bi-partisan study committee to work on this issue if proponents cannot accept the fact that they are doing real harm nor have the courage to admit that this is terrible legislation and should not pass.
Robert Dean again reveals his lack of understanding. He claims homeowners need the protection of this proposed amendment when in fact, the chances of any homeowner’s property being required for public use is somewhere between infinitesimal and nil, but the chance of a homeowner’s taxes being raised to pay high awards to rich commercial landowners for the new definitions in the amendment is 100%.
This is not the first nor last time Dean will have thrown homeowners under the bus, but this time, it will cost them dearly.
If you oppose higher taxes, you will have Robert Dean to blame for raising yours if this amendment passes.
Hey, Mike? Do you know what’s happened to real estate taxes ever since Robert Dean was defeated on Council??
They’ve gone down and down.
In fact, the last time Council raised real estate taxes was when Dean was there.
Some track record!
Yes Brian, you are correct. I have always been amazed that the VBTA has an unblemished record for opposing all the initiatives that have reduced our tax rate, and have supported every initiative, that if adopted, would have increased our tax rate. As you have pointed out, Robert K. Dean strikes out every time he speaks or posts. Of course, the same applies to John Moss, but he has so mesmerized his followers that they can’t write or speak for themselves.
Perhaps this is unique, but I see John Moss and Robert Dean quite differently. Sure, there are commonalities, but I’ve found Mr. Moss much easier to work with. He has his principles, of course, but understands government much better than Dean.
You can’t have a conversation with Robert. When he was a Democrat, Democrats couldn’t work with him. When he was a Republican, neither could the Republicans. He turned Libertarian, so he doesn’t have to work with anyone, although I saw him wearing a Republican shirt recently. Who knows what Party he’ll hang out with next.
I don’t equate Moss with that.
Brian:
I would love to continue this discussion in person so that I can have an opportunity to operate on your Truth Decay. You have misstated several facts in your responses and I would like to have the opportunity to straighten them out in person so that when you make references to my “meds,” you’ll be able to explain to me face-to-face what effects not taking them has on my personality.
On the issue of time, the policy appearing before Council is: Individuals, 3 minutes; a representative of an organization, 10 minutes. I was there representing the Tidewater Libertarian Party so I was entitled to 10 minutes, but my presentation was under four. If you will send me your e-mail address, I will provide you with the City policy and my comments so you can time them for yourself.
There are additional issues that you raised that need corrected, and again, I would prefer to do that in person. Your real estate tax comments simply aren’t true, and unlike your fellow liberal Mr. Barrett, I will provide you with the facts.
And as far as the eminent domain Constitutional Amendment is concerned, both you and Mr. Barrett need to sit down with the Virginia Beach delegation and share with them why the Amendment isn’t needed for private property rights protection. I didn’t write the enabling legislation, but I certainly do endorse it. The cost of protecting private property rights should not be born by the affected property owner nor should the owner be cheated out of fair compensation, which this legislation will prevent.
Please tell me when I was a dues-paying member of the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party. I attended both parties’ meetings over the years and did so to keep informed of the issues and supported various pieces of legislation proposed by both parties.
You did see me proudly wearing a Ron Paul Revolution tee shirt while appearing before Council. It is rare when I don’t wear a suit and tie, but I’m trying to promote Dr. Paul as much as I can leading up to the Virginia primary. Because you no longer appear before Council, I cannot comment on your position on issues, or what you do or do not wear. I’ll leave that to Stacy and Clinton.
Libertarians prefer to work with folks who support
Not being able to work with Republicans? That statement seems to be an oxymoron, for I have hanging on my wall the VB GOP President’s Award. True, my standards of being a constitutional, fiscal conservative puts me out of sorts from time-to-time with members of the Republican Party, but if I were a member of the GOP, I certainly would follow the Republican Creed just like I would the US Constitution, wouldn’t you, Mr. Kirwin (sp)?
Don’t forget to send me your e-mail address to: robertkdean&cox.net or call me at 427-6606.
Brian:
I would love to continue this discussion in person so that I can have an opportunity to operate on your Truth Decay. You have misstated several facts in your responses and I would like to have the opportunity to straighten them out in person so that when you make references to my “meds,” you’ll be able to explain to me face-to-face what effects not taking them has on my personality.
On the issue of time, the policy appearing before Council is: Individuals, 3 minutes; a representative of an organization, 10 minutes. I was there representing the Tidewater Libertarian Party so I was entitled to 10 minutes, but my presentation was under four. If you will send me your e-mail address, I will provide you with the City policy and my comments so you can time them for yourself.
There are additional issues that you raised that need corrected, and again, I would prefer to do that in person. Your real estate tax comments simply aren’t true, and unlike your fellow liberal Mr. Barrett, I will provide you with the facts.
And as far as the eminent domain Constitutional Amendment is concerned, both you and Mr. Barrett need to sit down with the Virginia Beach delegation and share with them why the Amendment isn’t needed for private property rights protection. I didn’t write the enabling legislation, but I certainly do endorse it. The cost of protecting private property rights should not be born by the affected property owner nor should the owner be cheated out of fair compensation, which this legislation will prevent.
Please tell me when I was a dues-paying member of the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party. I attended both parties’ meetings over the years and did so to keep informed of the issues and supported various pieces of legislation proposed by both parties.
You did see me proudly wearing a Ron Paul Revolution tee shirt while appearing before Council. It is rare when I don’t wear a suit and tie, but I’m trying to promote Dr. Paul as much as I can leading up to the Virginia primary. Because you no longer appear before Council, I cannot comment on your position on issues, or what you do or do not wear. I’ll leave that to Stacy and Clinton.
Libertarians prefer to work with folks who support the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Are you not in that camp? Did you not take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when you were sworn into the military?
Not being able to work with Republicans? That statement seems to be an oxymoron, for I have hanging on my wall the VB GOP President’s Award. True, my standards of being a constitutional, fiscal conservative puts me out of sorts from time-to-time with members of the Republican Party, but if I were a member of the GOP, I certainly would follow the Republican Creed just like I would the US Constitution, wouldn’t you, Mr. Kirwin (sp)?
Don’t forget to send me your e-mail address to: robertkdean&cox.net or call me at 427-6606.
Leave your response