This is hands-down the best piece I have ever read.
It's time to adapt to the era of mass shootings. And once we have secured our public and private spaces against the deranged, we can start trying to address root causes.
Only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote. The other 48 states bar incarcerated people from voting, and in many cases, have complex rules that make it difficult for felons to vote even after they’re released.
Matthews said that socialists have a pattern of reluctance to criticize other socialists who had governments, regardless of how aggressive and tyrannical they are.
Two men who spent 15 years in jail for a murder they did not commit were recently declared innocent, thanks to the dogged efforts of a group that has shed a light on the failures of our criminal justice system.
It is difficult to see why those guilty of heinous crimes should retain their right to vote.
Buried in the back of the Points section is this column of real significance about over-reaching government and property seizures. Persons acquitted of a crime still cannot get their property back? What country is this?
In a new IPI publication, “On Private Sector Use of Eminent Domain,” Tom Giovanetti confronts a difficult topic and makes the limited government case for the right for property to be taken by the private sector when there is an unwilling seller and two key conditions are met under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
There is no reason for principled conservatives to oppose private sector use of eminent domain, so long as it is reserved for a public use and includes just compensation. In fact, private sector infrastructure should be preferred over taxpayer-funded, government infrastructure. Through private sector development of infrastructure, we can grow the economy without growing the government.
Tom Giovanetti, president IPI, said he was “forced to testify in cautious opposition to the legislation and it is not because we do not value property rights and it is not because we are not sympathetic to situations where this is an unwilling seller.” But he said the bill — being limited to only private, for-profit companies — seems to assume “that private sector use of eminent domain is somehow more subject to abuse than government use or that there is something that is actually inappropriate about private sector use of eminent domain.”