User talk:Rocksavs

Mimi Walters article
I addressed your concerns on the talk page and in the article. Removed POV. User:calbear22 17:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Rocksavs's response to calbear22 edits
Hi Joseph (calbear22). I don't suppose your boss/member was/is Asm. Hector De La Torre, is he? You're rewriting of the Mimi Walters article is MUCH improved, but, while you take issue with the previous language as biased (I concede that it was), you cannot claim that the phrase "to restrict use of eminent domain by California local governments" is not equally biased.

Please look at it from this point of view: While the Constitution allowed for eminent domain in cases where "public use" such as building a school, road, bridge or some other form of public infrastructure, the purpose of increasing government revenues is not a public use, it is the use of the cudgel of eminent domain to take people's private land in order to give it to another private entity. This is corruption, political favors being repaid. Government's purpose is not to grant individuals their rights, its purpose is to protect our inherent, or as the Declaration terms it, unalienable rights. One of the most fundamental of these rights is the right to own property. If government decides it wants a particular property owner over another, how is this protecting the rights of individuals (particularly against what is invariably a corporate entity)?

It seems that the public perception of Democrats protecting the little guy and Republicans defending the corporation has been turned on its head. Now, I believe that because Democrats (as a rule) view the Constitution as a "living" document, one could rationalize that what was meant by its text in the 18th century, could be something completely different today. I argue that thinking like this is intellectually weak. The "living" portion of the Constitution does exist; it is called the Constitutional Amendment. However, the amount of change that can be effected by an Amendment is limited specifically by the scope of what is written in that Amendment (and that is assuming that the Amendment actually becomes part of the Constitution, which, as you know, does not happen very often).

There is no provision in the Constitution for changing attitudes or mores in future societies other than the Amendment process. It stretches credulity that in the United States one would actually NOT support the "restrict[ed] use of eminent domain by California local governments" in this context--unless a powerful interest group spends large sums of money to protect its own business interests, which are not consistent with the Constitution, and convinces voters that to support restricting local governments' ability to exercise eminent domain actually does the OPPOSITE (that is to curtail one's individual property rights), which is, of course, not true, but a deception to strike fear in the hearts of those who would otherwise support what effectively upholds the original intent of the Constitution, to protect the private property rights of Americans except in the narrowest of circumstances.

Thanks for your dedication to Wikipedia. I hope you take this mini-dissertation as an intellectual argument and not a personal attack.

Rocksavs 08:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

calbear22 response
Thank you for your comments and the respect you should me in making them. When it comes to wikipedia, it's about getting it right beyond our own viewpoints. I don't agree with your contention that eminent domain is really a biased term. To me, it sounds very technical. I do not share your point of view on the issue at hand and I admit that my own bias and background has blinded me in understanding your point.

As a tie breaker, I looked up the official ballot name of the Proposition. The article will now use the official name which stated that California Proposition 90 would have amended the California constitution in the areas of government acquisition and the regulation of private property. I think this is fair and viewpoint nuetral.

It was no problem, but in the future all talk related comments should be posted on the talk pages, either my talk page or the article's talk page. Wikipedia can make it difficult to learn where the talk page is. Basically, it's one of the tabs on the upper part of the screen marked discussion. Also, I don't think I noticed any internal links in your edits. Internal links, links to other wikipedia articles are easy. Just put ___ around the word. Sometimes, the word has a long name like California Proposition 90. You can make this term a link by writing out the long, proper name that wikipedia understands and then doing the short name link like California Proposition 90|Prop 90.

I actually worked for Asm. Mike Feuer. Good luck. &#91;&#91;User:calbear22]] 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)