Logan Darrow Clements

Logan Darrow Clements, the man looking to oust Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his New Hampshire home following last week’s ruling on eminent domain, says he’s willing to turn over his effort to professional developers.

“To make this project more viable,” he said on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes” program, “to let you know that it’s not a prank, that it’s a real project that’s gonna go forward, I want to hand this project off to an actual hotel-development company that has actually built hotels in the past, and I’ll simply act as the spokesperson.”

His statement comes as the town of Weare, N.H., has reportedly been inundated with calls in support of the proposal since WND first publicized the story.

“There are so many people who have come out of the woodwork to support me,” Clements said. “Government has just gotten far too big and far too powerful. … We’re trying to make a larger point that we’re losing freedom so fast in America that we have to stop what we’re doing and take a stand and fight it.”

Justice David Souter

Monday, Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of Weare, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter’s home.

“Am I taking this seriously? But of course,” Meany told the Associated Press. “In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin.”

Clements’ idea to seize Justice Souter’s property and build “The Lost Liberty Hotel” came after the 5-4 ruling last Thursday.

The Kelo v. City of New London decision allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for “public use,” such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

When asked by television host Rich Lowry, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, why he didn’t go after Justice John Paul Stevens’ abode as well, Clements responded, “There are such things as hotel chains, and so we can certainly have other locations.”

Previous stories:

Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?

Property battle heads to states

High court’s property decision stirs anger

Court rules cities can seize homes

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.