Virginia News Headlines: Tuesday Morning

John Douglass Campaign Statement on Debate Win #2 (0.00 / 0)

ALERT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 15, 2012

Statement on Second Debate Win

Warrenton VA - In response to the second debate tonight in Warrenton between Congressional Challenger General John Douglass and Congressman Hurt, the Douglass campaign issued the following statement:

"Tonight General Douglass went two for two in debates, picking up the cheers while corporate congressman Hurt earned the only two boos of the night," Douglass campaign spokesman Chase Winder said. "While General Douglass said he takes his oath to the Constitution and that the hardest decision he ever faced was leading men and women into harm's way, Hurt admitted that the hardest decision he faced was running for congress and that he doesn't know about his oath to a pledge for more deficit-funded tax subsidies for corporate outsourcers. Worst of all, Hurt says he doesn't see Fauquier County as part of the district he represents. Like Hurt said, our founding fathers would be dismayed by what we see in the current congress."

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:54:26 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Campaign Finance Reform (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:55:05 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Energy Policy (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:55:42 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Health Care Policy (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:56:13 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Economic and Tax Policy (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:56:50 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Congressional Gridlock and Bipartisanship (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:57:27 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Leadership and Decision Making (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:58:00 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate the All-Volunteer Military (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:58:36 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Abortion (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:59:09 AM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Immigration Policy (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:59:39 AM UTC

Video: President Clinton Explains Mitt Romney's $5 Trillion Tax Cut (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:57:38 AM UTC

Clinton Magic (0.00 / 0)

President Clinton can explain something to ordinary folks better than any other politician of his generation, and even perhaps going back as far as FDR.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:43:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Congress, Term Limits, and Career Politicians (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:00:17 PM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate the Size and Diversity of Virginia's 5th District (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:00:50 PM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate the U.S. Postal Service (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:01:20 PM UTC

Video: Robert Hurt and John Douglass Debate Negative Campaigning (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:01:55 PM UTC

Video: Schmookler, Goodlatte debate for 6th CD seat (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 13:42:52 PM UTC

Is that really a good reason to oppose Question 1? (0.00 / 0)

The simple fact that someone at the Examiner wrote an editorial in support of the amendment is no reason by itself to oppose its passage, is it?  Why shouldn't people read the amendment and decide for themselves?

For anyone who wants to do just that, the text of the amendment (as well as the question as it will appear on the ballot and an explanation) can be found at this website: http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/Fi...

Shall Section 11 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to require that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development; (ii) to define what is included in just compensation for such taking or damaging of property; and (iii) to prohibit the taking or damaging of more private property than is necessary for the public use?

---

by: pcaharrier @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 13:53:07 PM UTC

I oppose it anyway. (0.00 / 0)

The crazy Examiner endorsement is just icing on the cake.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 15:17:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oppose it because . . . ? (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you've posted about it in the past and I've just missed it.

---

by: pcaharrier @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 15:41:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

See (0.00 / 0)

Eminently Bad Constitutional Amendment Heads to Virginia Voters.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 15:52:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, here's the Arlington County Dem Committee resolution against it (0.00 / 0)

Arlington County Democratic Committee
RESOLUTION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO VIRGINIA'S CONSTITUTION ON EMINENT DOMAIN
For adoption on September 5, 2012

Whereas, on November 6, 2012, Virginia voters will vote on a proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution addressing eminent domain, and

Whereas, the proposed amendment to Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution would strike a provision which reads, "the General Assembly shall not pass any law ...  whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses, without just compensation, the term 'public uses' to be defined by the General Assembly" and replace it with a highly detailed set of restrictions on eminent domain, and

Whereas, the proposed amendment is duplicative of an existing statute, and

Whereas, the proposed amendment will add to the complexity and expense of governmental entities seeking to utilize eminent domain to benefit the public,

Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Arlington County Democratic Committee, on September 5, 2012, opposes the proposed amendment on eminent domain, and urges voters to vote "NO" on this proposed amendment.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 15:54:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fairfax Dems also oppose the amendment (0.00 / 0)

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 15:56:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it's a bad idea on principal (0.00 / 0)

I don't know what's at all "progressive" about opposing this bill as it is written. The harm to the principal of private property rights is more worrisome than the lack of benefit to urban localities trying to "redevelop" or whatever. Then again, I come at this from the perspective of someone who's watching people snatch up potential mineral/gas rights in SW VA by using connections in local government. Not very fair if you ask most people.

I will direct you to the Northam and Peterson comments on the issue for further clarification. They both represent areas which contain a mixture of suburban/urban/rural-type areas and realize that the potential harm of a "yes" vote isn't worth it.

I mean, the optics alone is terrible. Do you really want a party that just fulfills every bad stereotype about liberals? And using the argument of "x supports it, vote against it!" is incredibly lazy and makes you look like a simple partisan hack.  

I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.

~Will Rogers

---

by: Paba @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 17:12:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing to do with partisanship on this one. (0.00 / 0)

I think it's a stupid idea for the reasons I've articulated.

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 17:39:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amendment 1 is another Tea Party sleeper (4.00 / 1)

that, at first blush, sounds so reasonable. Take another look, please. Everything it plans to enshrine in our fundamental governing document is already part of the Virginia code, and is, therefore, unnecessary.

What is really wrong with it is, it is inappropriate that it be added to the Constitution because it is far too detailed and specific. One of the glories of the American Constitution is that it is glittering generalities, not itemized, specific grievances---- hence it gives latitude to subsequent generations to interpret it in keeping with their times. In contrast, banana republics have lengthy, 50-100 page "constitutions" with endless details, so, when something containned therein turns out to be unworkable, they have to have another revolution to change it. When  you get so detailed and specific, you create loopholes and unintended consequences, so there will have to be additional amendments to deal with the unintended consequences, and that process is unwieldy and never-ending. It much better handled with legislation than constitutional amendments. amendment 1 is inappropriate to be in the Constitution.
VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 17:59:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, this is a big one for Ken Kookinelli. (0.00 / 0)

Bob McDonnell and Corey Stewart are also big fans.

Those opposed include:

*The Virginia Municipal League
*The Virginia Association of Counties
*Northern Virginia chambers of commerce
*Lynchburg City officials
*The Leesburg Council
*Hanover County's Attorney
*The Democratic Party of Virginia
*The following State Senators: Barker, Blevins, Colgan, Ebbin, Favola, Herring, Howell, Locke, Lucas, Marsden, Marsh, McEachin, Miller, J.C., Miller, Y.B., Puller, Saslaw, Watkins
*The following Delegates: Brink, Carr, Englin, Filler-Corn, Herring, Hope, James, Kory, Lopez, McClellan, McQuinn, Morrissey, Scott, J.M., Sickles, Surovell, Toscano, Watts

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 19:27:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At least that a somewhat substantive argument (4.00 / 1)

But, the language in the Constitution is far too general right now.  No, not everything should go in the Constitution (and I say having grown up in Florida where they once amended the constitution to regulate the size of the pens in which you could legally confine pregnant pigs).  Certain things, however, should go in the Constitution.  I think property rights are a proper subject for constitutional protection.

The problems with leaving property rights protected only by statute are pointed out here: http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/...

There is also an important point made in that article:

Moreover, even takings enacted under a narrow definition of "blight" are often problematic, because they tend to victimize poor and politically weak communities for the benefit of influential interest groups. There are better ways to improve blighted areas than condemning the neighborhood in order to save it. Indeed, stronger protection for property rights might well promote economic development in poor areas rather than hinder it.

The article above links to two other articles which can be found here: http://www.cato.org/publicatio... and here: http://yalelawjournal.org/the-...

Here's a passage worth noting from the first of those:

Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In an amicus brief filed in the case, it argued that "[t]he burden of eminent domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged." Unfettered eminent domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a "license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests."

Some earlier civil rights champions, by contrast, often ignored, or worse helped to undermine, the rights of property owners. Ironically, the same U.S. Supreme Court which handed down Brown v. Board in 1954 also issued Berman v. Parker, in which the Court allowed the District of Columbia to forcibly expel some 5,000 low-income African-Americans from their homes in order to facilitate "urban renewal." It was Berman that enabled the massive urban renewal condemnations of later decades, which many critics dubbed "Negro removal" because they too tended to target African-Americans.

Four years ago, the city of Alabaster, Ala., used "blight" as a pretext to take 400 acres of rural property, much of it owned by low-income black people, for a new Wal-Mart. Many of the residents had lived there for generations, and two other Wal-Mart stores were located less than fifteen miles away. Several of the landowners, particularly those who lacked political clout and legal aid, ended up selling out at a discount.

You can call this a Tea Party thing, but I think that's entirely unfair.  Among the people most likely to be affected by abusive eminent domain practices are people that groups such as the Democratic Party of Virginia would ordinarily consider their core constituencies.  Now, however, they appear to be prepared to take the side of developers and other big money interests.  That's almost inexplicable to me.

---

by: pcaharrier @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 20:49:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Interesting comment, thanks. (0.00 / 0)

It's so rare these days to have someone actually make their case, using evidence and logical arguments, it's very refreshing (even if, in the end, we don't agree on the need to amend the constitution over this issue).

Follow me on Twitter. Follow Blue Virginia on Facebook and Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 21:06:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's rare indeed (0.00 / 0)

I'm just glad that this site is a place where evidence-based arguments are appreciated (even if they're not ultimately accepted). Having those discussions is, I think, the only way to get at real solutions to problems that we face.

I enjoy reading this site, by the way.  Keep up the good work!  How else am I going to know what all you "scary" liberal-progressives are reading and discussing? :P

---

by: pcaharrier @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:48:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another factor not addressed here (0.00 / 0)

is the requirement that private property owners be compensated for future lost revenue that might be obtained from the property, in addition to the normal, already accepted compensation for the current market value of the property which is "taken." This opens another whole bucket of worms---- no wonder almost all of Virginia's  local jurisdictions are against the Amendment. They are afraid simply closing a street for a parade will cause adjacent business owners to sue for lost profits, or that it will make it exhorbitantly expensive if not impossible to build roads, mass transit, and so on. Greed trumps gridlock.  

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 23:23:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not a taking for purposes of eminent domain law (0.00 / 0)

I'm not aware of any case ever that has recognized the temporary closing of a street as a taking of the property. If you're aware of one, please point me to it because I'd be very interested to see it.

Again, the cost issue only begs the question.  Between the landowner and the public, who should bear the cost of building a street for public use?  The argument that this amendment will cost localities more really boils down to an argument that, in effect, individual landowners should have to bear the costs instead of ALL the taxpayers of any given locality.  That just doesn't make sense to me.

---

by: pcaharrier @ Thu Oct 18, 2012 at 13:52:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]