Welcome to LibertyGarden.com
Search  
Main Menu  

    Printerfriendly display  Printerfriendly display    

The Nature of Individual Liberty and the Supreme Court's 2005 Debacle

James Burling, Principal Attorney working in the Property Rights Division of Pacific Legal Foundation discusses three Supreme Court cases that result in the destructiion of property rights. Includes discussion of the Kelo case. Host Michael ShawRelated links:

Freedom 21 Radio Archive: The Nature of Individual Liberty and the Supreme Court's 2005 Debacle>


    Written by James Burling on Freedom 21 Santa Cruz Radio

 Printerfriendly display  Printerfriendly display    
  
Now showing!  
The Liberty Garden Movie

Shaw v Santa Cruz County: Shaw Appeals  

Disincentives preclude innovation  
“Because of the Endangered Species Act—what developer or land owner would want to purchase or own the land and do what we are doing? Disincentives preclude innovation. It is no wonder that no o­ne else is following this common sense formulation for success: Pull the weeds and manage the plants and the hydrology.”

- Michael Shaw

Liberty Garden takes on confiscatory court ruling  

“Twenty-five years ago, the Court posited that a regulation of private property ‘effects a taking if [it] does not substantially advance [a] legitimate state interes[t]... Today we correct course.  We hold that the ‘substantially advances’ formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed conclude that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.”

-Ron Zumbrun

Read more>


Login  




 


 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!

[About Us | Terms of use | Privacy policy | Accessibility statement ]