Loading ...
S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFIES ‘PC POLICE’ AND OKAYS ADVERTISEMENTS, OTHER ITEMS
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was accused this week of subliminally using a “floating cross” in the background of his new Christmas ad as a nod to evangelical Christians. MSNBC host Chris Matthews even went so far as to suggest that Huckabee was “putting himself on the cross.” He denied both charges.
While he did not condemn Huckabee’s ad, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said Tuesday that he hoped “we don’t divide America on the basis of faith.”
“I hope Gov. Huckabee, like all of us at this time, is sensitive to that diversity of faith and the liberty of peoples to worship God as they choose,” Romney told reporters in South Carolina.
Apparently, Romney and the PC police don’t get it. It’s Christmas. Lighten up for G*d’s sake.
But not long after Romney’s statement, rival Sen. John McCain released his first South Carolina television ad of the primary season (video below) which puts the cross front and center.
[video]http://www.palmettoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/My_Christmas_story.wmv[/video]
Besides approving the use of the cross during Christmas, McMaster approved of use of the American flag during the Forth of July, the Bunny during Easter, the horn of plenty during Thanksgiving, goofy hats and noisemakers on New Years eve, short sundresses at Carolina cup, and the sissy “whoo hoo” during the Clemson tiger rag cheer.
I would ask if Red State McMaster would approve of Elvis’ “Blue Christmas,” but I think I know the answer to that. So here’s to you Mr. Attorney General:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUyuGFoiWJ0[/youtube]
[...] PC does not stand for ‘political crosses’ [...]
Binden Plantation and Yemassee, SC
Three grounds for invalidating the annexation of Bindon Plantation:
(1) the property sought to be annexed was not contiguous to the City;
(2) the City Council’s actions were “arbitrary, irrational and capricious
(3) no one owning an interest in the waters, marshes, and roads of the Beaufort County had consented to the annexation of that property.
The annexation should be dismissed based on the action on the ground that, because Yemassee did not own real property in the area and had no proprietary interest or statutory rights in the annexed area, it lacked standing to pursue annexation. The court should reverse annexation by observing that Yemassee attempted to establish contiguity, not by merely crossing a roadway to annex an adjacent property, but by annexing the length of a road to establish a common boundary” and further noting that “that kind of annexation is not authorized by the laws of this state.”
Based on the supreme court’s recognition that private individuals have standing to attack and void annexation. The court should conclude that the newly annexed area to Yemassee, without either proprietary interests or statutory rights in the annexed area, does not have standing and the annexation is invalid.
In other words, if a municipality annexes property that is beyond its reach, the annexation must fail as a matter of law, even when there was compliance with the statutory requirements to effect the annexation. It follows, then, that if an annexation is void as a matter of law, a plaintiff need not “assert an infringement of its own proprietary interests or statutory rights in order to establish standing” to challenge it.
The annexation is necessarily defective.
As to the lack of contiguity, “The law authorizes the City to annex only contiguous territory, and since the property purportedly annexed is not contiguous as a matter of law, the annexation is void.” This is to mean that the requirement of contiguity was not met because of the presence of the roads, waters, and marshes between Yemassee and Bindon Plantation.
The Yemassee annexation is defective based on the issue of compliance with the statutory requirements for annexation. The annexation is unauthorized by the laws of this State.
Yemassee has infringed on statutory rights and proprietary interests of the residents of Beaufort County. The annexation will increase Beaufort County’s burden of taxation, and divert taxpayer funds other purposes intended by law and will affect them differently from other citizens and put an unfair burden on the taxpayers of the rest of Beaufort County.
Beaufort County residents have standing because the “the actions of Yemassee in annexing the subject property are void and were done without lawful authority” and would therefore result in the expenditure of municipal funds to provide services to the annexed territory.