NationStates Jolt Archive

In a decision that represents the first nail in the coffin of property rights in the United States, the Supreme Court make the ruling:

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The rest of the article (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property) is on Yahoo.
Buy some Wal-Mart stock. They're the only ones that stand to benefit.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2


Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice
Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Simple question: Is it good or bad?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2



Simple question: Is it good or bad?

It was how the City of Pittsburgh was able to get the land for Heinz Field and PNC Park!

Its probably both.

Nothing but bad.

So now the SCOTUS has effectively deleted the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendments.

There goes private property.....

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/

You beat me to it. This is horrible!!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2



Simple question: Is it good or bad?
Definately anti 5th and 4th amendment, especially 4th. Seizure for private developement? BULLSHIT

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2



Simple question: Is it good or bad?
Definately anti 5th and 4th amendment, especially 4th. Seizure for private developement? BULLSHIT. That reeks of chinese fascism: tearing down the homes of poor chinese people and replacing them with highrises tehy can't afford to live in

They have to give you "just compensation" but still force you to move. It used to be only for roads and public services etc which I can see an arguement for. Now it's for any developer that can pay off enough Gov't officials.

This just seems wrong to me. Buissness only thrive when people go and buy things from that buisness. Why would they want to piss of as many people as they could to make a shopping mall? It is their land. If they want to sell it to these people, thats ok by me, but forcing them off their land isn't right.

Buy some Wal-Mart stock. They're the only ones that stand to benefit.

Umm, Ikea is big on this actually, not Wal-mart.

Even funnier, Ikea will have people turned out then back out of the deal, after it has made some homeless people. Oh those crazy swedes.

Still, what did you expect, that the ACLU would try and stop this? They have important NAMBLA work.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2



Simple question: Is it good or bad?
It's the beginning of the end for property rights in the U.S. That's one of the most important guarantees in the Constitution. Now it's gone. Buy Wal-Mart stock, they should make out like bandits in this decision.

Dammit, there goes private property. Seems like a revolution would just be so much simpler....

You say this like it's a bad thing. Oh. Wait. You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone.

Ihatevacations']Definately anti 5th and 4th amendment, especially 4th. Seizure for private developement? BULLSHIT

The world is officially going to end. We actually agree on something.

Burn a flag to protest this country going to hell while you still can!

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?
This isn't capitalism. Capitalistic transfers assume that one side can refuse. This sucks.

They have to give you "just compensation" but still force you to move. It used to be only for roads and public services etc which I can see an arguement for. Now it's for any developer that can pay off enough Gov't officials.

And I'm sure that if you refuse their "just compensation" and say no I'm not going anywhere that you will THEN be removed by force.

Ihatevacations']Definately anti 5th and 4th amendment, especially 4th. Seizure for private developement? BULLSHIT. That reeks of chinese fascism: tearing down the homes of poor chinese people and replacing them with highrises tehy can't afford to live in
Or Mugabe communism.

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?

It didnt say :eek:. I think it is the regime one though.

Isn't this the violation of the right to own property. Just imagine, you just bought a 200000 house, and after the first week it was bulldozed, or after you finish paying off your mortage. That would suck.

Umm, Ikea is big on this actually, not Wal-mart.

Even funnier, Ikea will have people turned out then back out of the deal, after it has made some homeless people. Oh those crazy swedes.

Still, what did you expect, that the ACLU would try and stop this? They have important NAMBLA work.
Wal-Mart is very active in the abuse of eminent domain. Just google the combination and I'll bet you find a hundred results.

This abuse isn't new, but the SC decision puts a peculiar type of approval on it.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Oh. Wait. You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone.

Yep. :p

You say this like it's a bad thing. Oh. Wait. You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone.
The only scum here is people like you talking bullshit

Forcing people out of their homes for private industry reeks of Chinese fascism: force people out of their rural homes and replace with highrises they can't afford to live in

In a decision that represents the first nail in the coffin of property rights in the United States, the Supreme Court make the ruling:

The rest of the article (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property) is on Yahoo.
Buy some Wal-Mart stock. They're the only ones that stand to benefit.
This is nothing new, simply a reaffirmation of the "right of eminent domain." Governments have always had the right to appropriate private property provided they reimburse the owner, usually for "fair market value."

And I'm sure that if you refuse their "just compensation" and say no I'm not going anywhere that you will THEN be removed by force.

That goes both ways historically. Right now there's a guy in Florida refusing to sell for millions of dollars when his land is worth a few thousand , delaying a massive engineering project, and they haven't touched him. I'm sure that will change now, though.

This is nothing new, simply a reaffirmation of the "right of eminent domain." Governments have always had the right to appropriate private property provided they reimburse the owner, usually for "fair market value."
Before it was for roads or airports. Now it can be for a 7-11.

This is nothing new, simply a reaffirmation of the "right of eminent domain." Governments have always had the right to appropriate private property provided they reimburse the owner, usually for "fair market value."

And if the owner doesn't WANT to move they have the right to bear arms. :sniper:

This is nothing new, simply a reaffirmation of the "right of eminent domain." Governments have always had the right to appropriate private property provided they reimburse the owner, usually for "fair market value."
Not to this extent. What the government has always had to do was show that the condemnation was to serve a public purpose. Dams, highways, and other public works are easy to justify. Increased property tax revenue isn't. What this amounts to is that the government can now take property from an private owner and give it to another private owner at its pleasure. That's wrong.

Before it was for roads or airports. Now it can be for a 7-11.
That's exactly it. The public doesn't benefit, but 7-11 and the city do.

Open season on desirable property has just been declared.


What is wrong with our Court, anyway? Can't they read?

Wal-Mart is very active in the abuse of eminent domain. Just google the combination and I'll bet you find a hundred results.

This abuse isn't new, but the SC decision puts a peculiar type of approval on it.

I found an article about a bunch of crappy stores for wal-mart that sounded dubious.

Ikea kicks people out of their homes. It is by far the worst offender. But, as usual, because it is a danish company, people refuse to believe anything bad about it.

Before it was for roads or airports. Now it can be for a 7-11.

Actually, they've been doing this since the 40-50s. Its nothing new. (Damn democrats).

Not to this extent. What the government has always had to do was show that the condemnation was to serve a public purpose. Dams, highways, and other public works are easy to justify. Increased property tax revenue isn't. What this amounts to is that the government can now take property from an private owner and give it to another private owner at its pleasure. That's wrong.

Makes me angry. Mental anguish rising. Wanting to sue rising.

There has to be something in the constitution or laws to show this doesn't work.
Hmmm. Is favoritism illegal? Ah possibly discrimination or bribary (for up coming elections).

I found an article about a bunch of crappy stores for wal-mart that sounded dubious.

Ikea kicks people out of their homes. It is by far the worst offender. But, as usual, because it is a danish company, people refuse to believe anything bad about it.
Try this (http://www.google.com/search?q=wal-mart+eminent+domain&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) link. There have been quite a few notable cases. Mostly poor towns in Alabama. Ikea may be bad, but not in the South.

And if the owner doesn't WANT to move they have the right to bear arms. :sniper:

Not according to the SCOTUS. and you can't advertise or donate too much money for politicians that would oppose it either.

Actually, they've been doing this since the 40-50s. Its nothing new. (Damn democrats).
I'll vote Democrat any day before I vote republican and I don't support this,. You got anything less than the Bullshit Broad Sweep 2000?

Before it was for roads or airports. Now it can be for a 7-11.
( shrug ) That's politics. I suspect that if a local government abused this, the voters would eventually rebel.

Try this (http://www.google.com/search?q=wal-mart+eminent+domain&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) link. There have been quite a few notable cases. Mostly poor towns in Alabama. Ikea may be bad, but not in the South.

I am not saying that Wal-Mart doesn't do it. It just seems that they mostly go after other commercial real estate holders.

Ikea, has no problem making people homeless. And in one instance did even bother to open a store afterwards (HAHAHA, funny joke you danish people).

When you get Ikea down south, you'll learn what truly sharp business practices are. Why do you think wal-mart has been unable to capture the shit furniture market.

It is bad beyond belief. You can now have your home or business taken legally and given to the mayors son if they like. In fact, now they can legally take your business or home and just tell you because we might want to use it for something in the future.
As far a just compensation, thats a joke. They get real estate agents to discout an area they want by 50% then offer you 130% of the value of that. So say the mayor's secretary wants to expand her yard so she wants half of yours. Your plot is worth 10000 dollars but the real estate appraiser who is the mayor's wife appraises it at 5000 dollars. Out of the goodness of their little hearts they might give you 8000 dollars for it.
What gets me about it the whole thing is it was the so called liberals that did it. Looks like we're gearing up for all land owned by the government.

Kennedy joined the dark side :(

Not to this extent. What the government has always had to do was show that the condemnation was to serve a public purpose. Dams, highways, and other public works are easy to justify. Increased property tax revenue isn't. What this amounts to is that the government can now take property from an private owner and give it to another private owner at its pleasure. That's wrong.
I suspect you're overstating the case here. This Supreme Court is rather conservative and wouldn't support that sort of thing in the long run. I would love to read the Justices' decision on this, particularly the dissenting ones.

Ihatevacations']I'll vote Democrat any day before I vote republican and I don't support this,. You got anything less than the Bullshit Broad Sweep 2000?

There is a very long book called the Power Broker by Robert Cairo. It's mostly about Robert Moses, but it also explains how and why this came about. Now, I don't expect you to read it because it doesn't have any pictures, and it involves history (something you clearly find boring and stupid); so I'll condense it for you: This type of use of eminent domain powers originated with the Democrats during the new deal.

Now, do you have anything less than ill-mannered, ill-informed, flamy nonsense.

( shrug ) That's politics. I suspect that if a local government abused this, the voters would eventually rebel.

The trouble is, that people rarely rebel for economic matters. Religion or race? Sure. But I can't think of a single economic rebellion in the US, ever. (I'm not counting strikes, as those aren't against a government.)

Nothing but bad.

So now the SCOTUS has effectively deleted the 1st, 2nd, and 5th Amendments.

Well, I dont know what the 1st and 2nd have to do with it, but no, they made the 5th unlimited.

Ihatevacations']The only scum here is people like you talking bullshit

Forcing people out of their homes for private industry reeks of Chinese fascism: force people out of their rural homes and replace with highrises they can't afford to live in

i don't think that this is a republican/democrat issue... more like a freedom vs. tyranny issue.

people should have a right to refuse having to give up their homes.

I preach about propriety/ownership rights... i can't back down now.

it totally sucks. ownership rights (including property ownership), at least in this country, must be respected.

This isn't capitalism. Capitalistic transfers assume that one side can refuse. This sucks.

coughsweatshopscough

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?

Nope, this is the dawn of world wide socialism. It was the liberal judges that did this. The conservatives voted against it.

There is a very long book called the Power Broker by Robert Cairo. It's mostly about Robert Moses, but it also explains how and why this came about. Now, I don't expect you to read it because it doesn't have any pictures, and it involves history (something you clearly find boring and stupid); so I'll condense it for you: This type of use of eminent domain powers originated with the Democrats during the new deal.

Now, do you have anything less than ill-mannered, ill-informed, flamy nonsense.
Your pitiful Republican mind was obviously so busy writing thinly veiled insults to realize you were a) being a hypocrite and b) entirely missing the point. Imminent domain for public good, ok, not that great, but hey, we might need a dam or something useful for the public. This new rule allows for private companies to buy out the government, which they are now sanctioned to do. I'm not going to start voting for the people who corporations are already in the pockets of, ie REPUBLICANS, just because democrats did something I disagree with. I frankly don't give a damn. They are a far better party than teh Republicans and now if you can grow up, lets move on


I DARE all teh rightwingers coming in here, I know they are rightwingers because they immediately start attacking liberals and democrats, who are crying socialism to explain to me how giving companies rights over people supports the idea of socialism.

I suspect you're overstating the case here. This Supreme Court is rather conservative and wouldn't support that sort of thing in the long run. I would love to read the Justices' decision on this, particularly the dissenting ones.

This has been going on the the supreme courts blessing since 1954.

(And obviously it has been going on since before that).

I suspect you're overstating the case here. This Supreme Court is rather conservative and wouldn't support that sort of thing in the long run. I would love to read the Justices' decision on this, particularly the dissenting ones.
I don't think so. In this case New London, CT has condemned property so that a developer can build a shopping mall. How does the public benefit? Not directly as in the case of an airport or highway. Only indirectly, if you count the increased tax revenues to New London as a benefit. Not what I would call proper use of eminent domain.

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?

Its just expanding what eminent domain can be used for, which means the will be paid what the GOVERNMENT thinks their property is worth :(

coughsweatshopscough
Off the point, but no one forces sweatshop labor to work. They can always beg.

Ihatevacations']Your pitiful Republican mind was obviously so busy writing thinly veiled insults to realize you were a) being a hypocrite and b) entirely missing the point. Imminent domain for public good, ok, not that great, but hey, we might need a dam or something useful for the public. This new rule allows for private companies to buy out the government, which they are now sanctioned to do. I'm not going to start voting for the people who corporations are already in the pockets of, ie REPUBLICANS, just because democrats did something I disagree with. I frankly don't give a damn. They are a far better party than teh Republicans and now if you can grow up, lets move on

What the OP was talking about is not a new rule. I have no idea what imminent domain is. Is that where it happens at once?

And drop the partisan hackery, you have no idea what you are talking about.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Oh. Wait. You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone.
no im capitlalist scum who thinks that land should belong to the person who BOUGHT it and only taken from them under the direst of social need, when no other solution is possible.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Oh. Wait. You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone.

Hate to tell you this Rojo, but it is a bad thing. It in effect allows the government to take your land for whatever price, whatever reason and give it to anyone they like for whatever they want.

Ihatevacations']
I DARE all teh rightwingers coming in here, I know they are rightwingers because they immediately start attacking liberals and democrats, who are crying socialism to explain to me how giving companies rights over people supports the idea of socialism.

It was your socialist buddies that started this under the guise of Urban Renewal. (Kicking poor people out to let business in). :rolleyes:

What the OP was talking about is not a new rule. I have no idea what imminent domain is. Is that where it happens at once?

And drop the partisan hackery, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Partisan hackery? me? I am being accused of partisan hackery by the person whose first post in teh topic does NOT attack the decision itself but instead immediately villifies Democrats. I don't even need to explain this one

Just proves that there is only one party in the US: the rich.

Ihatevacations']Partisan hackery? me? I am being accused of partisan hackery by the person whose first post in teh topic does NOT attack the decision itself but instead immediately villifies Democrats. I don't even need to explain this one

No, I was blaming those who started this. You then turned it into a partisan war.

You could have simply asked what do the democrats have to do with this, and I would have explained. But instead you assume I am a republican and started to blather on about republicans v. democrats.

Had the republicans thought this up, I would blame them. I don't like it at all.

Liverbreath']Well, I dont know what the 1st and 2nd have to do with it, but no, they made the 5th unlimited.
Just going over the lousy history of this court. What it comes down to is that there are nine judges in Washington that govern us. Everything else is just for show.

This is nothing new, simply a reaffirmation of the "right of eminent domain." Governments have always had the right to appropriate private property provided they reimburse the owner, usually for "fair market value."

No actually this is an expansion of it. Read O'conners disent and it will spell it out. This is actually tragic but not unexpected.

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?maybe he means to do destroy the homes with CAT bulldozers...like they do it in Israel. :D

So you can't jsut settle with "this is a stupid decision *explanation*" you have to immediately attack whoever?

Just proves that there is only one party in the US: the rich.
So what the hell do we do? I can't advocate overthrowing the government. The ACLU doesn't care. The sad thing is that we are governed by nine judges in Washington and everything else is for show.

Ihatevacations']So you can't jsut settle with "this is a stupid decision *explanation*" you have to immediately attack whoever?are you talking to me?

There is a very long book called the Power Broker by Robert Cairo. It's mostly about Robert Moses, but it also explains how and why this came about. Now, I don't expect you to read it because it doesn't have any pictures, and it involves history (something you clearly find boring and stupid); so I'll condense it for you: This type of use of eminent domain powers originated with the Democrats during the new deal.

Now, do you have anything less than ill-mannered, ill-informed, flamy nonsense.

ahhh, the New Deal... programs that really introduced us to socialism. (not all parts were socialist, of course, and many were needed at that time...)

So what the hell do we do? I can't advocate overthrowing the government.


Neither can I















Publicly. :p

So what the hell do we do? I can't advocate overthrowing the government. The ACLU doesn't care. The sad thing is that we are governed by nine judges in Washington and everything else is for show.

More like 5. Majority rules.

Actually, this case isn't a big departure from the current state of the law. It really just puts a little gloss on the "public use" doctrine. The Supreme Court is saying, once again, that it doesn't want to substitute its judgment for the judgment of state and local legislators.

The appropriate response is to persuade your representatives to rewrite the statutes or, if you're dead set on inviolate property rights, to rewrite the Constitution's takings clause to always prohibit government takings.

The trouble is, that people rarely rebel for economic matters. Religion or race? Sure. But I can't think of a single economic rebellion in the US, ever. (I'm not counting strikes, as those aren't against a government.)

The american revolution was over a 3% tax.
Ever heard of the Wiskey rebellion? That was the result of the people who didn't want to pay the 3% to the brits deciding someone should instead be paying them.

More like 5. Majority rules.
Thanks. I still haven't gotten my chin up off the floor from my last revelation.

There is a very long book called the Power Broker by Robert Cairo. It's mostly about Robert Moses, but it also explains how and why this came about. Now, I don't expect you to read it because it doesn't have any pictures, and it involves history (something you clearly find boring and stupid); so I'll condense it for you: This type of use of eminent domain powers originated with the Democrats during the new deal.

Now, do you have anything less than ill-mannered, ill-informed, flamy nonsense.

Additionally, did you notice which judges came down on which side. I was surprised to see how the more conservative judges voted...

Ihatevacations']So you can't jsut settle with "this is a stupid decision *explanation*" you have to immediately attack whoever?

No I believe he was saying that he did not like emminent domain at all and rightly pointed to the democrats as the ones who started it.

This whole thing is disgusting. Five old judges, who have probably never even been to my city, are telling my corrupt city government (where I live we have a serious problem) that they can forcibly buy someone’ house, give it to someone else and then fatten their wallets with the tax revenue. Absolutely sickening. You know where this going to end up being used immediately, though. In the small cites where they have been blocking the building of churches with red tape for years, because the greedy politicians want shopping centers there instead. I guess the congregations are going to have to keep meeting in crammed unsafe buildings. So much for “ or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. :(

Additionally, did you notice which judges came down on which side. I was surprised to see how the more conservative judges voted...

It is not surprising at all to me. The left touts championing "for the good of all" while the right recognizes that if the rights of the individual are protected then the good of all is automatically covered. Unfortunately, what the left really means when they say the greater good, is for the governments good.

I must admit to being shocked at first, simply because I didn't think the leftists on the court would make this move with them losing so much support across the country. Man this is really going to hit them hard come next elections.

Liverbreath']It is not surprising at all to me. The left touts championing "for the good of all" while the right recognizes that if the rights of the individual are protected then the good of all is automatically covered.

The same right that protects the rights of individuals by banning gay mariage?

That ruling is Unconstitutional. Probably took a lot of bribing to get that ruling made.

This whole thing is disgusting. Five old judges, who have probably never even been to my city, are telling my corrupt city government (where I live we have a serious problem) that they can forcibly buy someone’ house, give it to someone else and then fatten their wallets with the tax revenue. Absolutely sickening. You know where this going to end up being used immediately, though. In the small cites where they have been blocking the building of churches with red tape for years, because the greedy politicians want shopping centers there instead. I guess the congregations are going to have to keep meeting in crammed unsafe buildings. So much for “ or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. :(

You have my heartfelt sympathy. I have been through it 4 times in 25 years as my state and local government is completely corrupt and the 2nd worst abuser of imment domain. Well, maybe because I have a decent eye for value in land too, but I digress. It is really going to get bad now. Wonder if it will help to crash the housing market in some areas?

So what the hell do we do? I can't advocate overthrowing the government. The ACLU doesn't care. The sad thing is that we are governed by nine judges in Washington and everything else is for show.

Good question. If I had the answer, I'd be running for office... :(

Which is baffling, since this is what the ACLU *should* care about...

The same right that protects the rights of individuals by banning gay mariage?

I dont ever recall reading about the right to be married. Could you possibly fill me in on where to find it?

Liverbreath]I must admit to being shocked at first, simply because I didn't think the leftists on the court would make this move with them losing so much support across the country. Man this is really going to hit them hard come next elections.

Ahh, sarcasm got to love it. Imagine a society where the Supreme Court was elected, or at least one where people connected the political parties to the judges.

Liverbreath']The american revolution was over a 3% tax.
Ever heard of the Wiskey rebellion? That was the result of the people who didn't want to pay the 3% to the brits deciding someone should instead be paying them.

And you had to go back over 200 years to find any examples...

The American Revolution was over a tax without representation, not the tax itself. As for the Whiskey Rebellion, one must keep in mind it was a leveraged tax, not an outright denial of rights. Monroe, CT goes into "tax revolt" every year, when it takes 17 ballots to get a town budget. But that's not the same as the town deciding to buy my friend's home and let 7-11 put a store there.

This could easily lead to the government kicking people out of their homes because the government doesn't like them and giving them a property value of $1.

I'm not saying this will happen now, or even at all. If it does it would take at least 10 years to slowly move to that kind of thing.

Well....I'm not moving

:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:

Liverbreath']
I must admit to being shocked at first, simply because I didn't think the leftists on the court would make this move with them losing so much support across the country. Man this is really going to hit them hard come next elections.
Which would only serve to prove people are REALLY stupid

This could easily lead to the government kicking people out of their homes because the government doesn't like them and giving them a property value of $1.

I'm not saying this will happen now, or even at all. If it does it would take at least 10 years to slowly move to that kind of thing.

Well....I'm not moving

:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:mp5:
:sniper:
Buy a tank on ebay. Come and get my house suckers!
:mp5:

Ahh, sarcasm got to love it. Imagine a society where the Supreme Court was elected, or at least one where people connected the political parties to the judges.

It was truely not sarcasm. Whether or not we like it the parties and their ideologies are connected to the judges. They always have been but, especially now since we have judges now that base their rulings on their personal opinion rather than the rule of law.

Liverbreath']It is not surprising at all to me. The left touts championing "for the good of all" while the right recognizes that if the rights of the individual are protected then the good of all is automatically covered. Unfortunately, what the left really means when they say the greater good, is for the governments good.

I must admit to being shocked at first, simply because I didn't think the leftists on the court would make this move with them losing so much support across the country. Man this is really going to hit them hard come next elections.

True to some degree, but the left does often champion individual rights, albeit misguidedly at times, as well and usually do not favor expansion of "big business". So, it is still at least a little surprising to me. This is one case where the Right side of the isle surprised me in a positive way.

That's exactly it. The public doesn't benefit, but 7-11 and the city do.

Open season on desirable property has just been declared.


What is wrong with our Court, anyway? Can't they read?
Well, the 5-4 decision involved the 5 most liberal, read communist, judges on the supreme court.

This is just wonderful... With this, now the town council can go out and snap up more of the boonies just to build more shitty condos and apartments that no one even lives in.... *shakes head*


About the only good thing to (possibly) come out of this is now the town can raze Cottonwood to the ground and build something nicer over it.... :p

So what the hell do we do? I can't advocate overthrowing the government. The ACLU doesn't care. The sad thing is that we are governed by nine judges in Washington and everything else is for show.
you work on your state and local level to pass laws that disallow this kind of emminent domain. its not that it HAS to be legal, its that its not unconstitutional.

talk to your city councillor or state rep to see what can be done.

Ihatevacations']Which would only serve to prove people are REALLY stupid

Well, I was under the impression that voting for Bush already did that. I really do believe though that we desprately need a third party because I dont see either side paying one iota of attention to what the people want.

Liverbreath']I dont ever recall reading about the right to be married. Could you possibly fill me in on where to find it?

As mariage is a religious rite I would file it under fredom of religion, first amendment. My high Priestess (or myself for that matter, I am an ordained minister) could within our religion marry two men or two women but unlike a Christian mariage of one man and one woman it will not be recognised, this creates a special status for religions like certain sects of Christianity where only a man and a woman may be married.

And you had to go back over 200 years to find any examples...

The American Revolution was over a tax without representation, not the tax itself. As for the Whiskey Rebellion, one must keep in mind it was a leveraged tax, not an outright denial of rights. Monroe, CT goes into "tax revolt" every year, when it takes 17 ballots to get a town budget. But that's not the same as the town deciding to buy my friend's home and let 7-11 put a store there.

Actually I just went back to the first two I could recall in a chronological order. One could probably attribute several different things to them both if interested, but your point is well taken. The whole thing is really pathetic and that is a major understatement. I have made one personal decision though. I will never, ever patronize any establishment placed on land stolen by the government and sold to a private business for any reason.

Buy a tank on ebay. Come and get my house suckers!
:mp5:

A tank doesn't mean shit. All they need is a TOW missile and you're toast. Literally.

you work on your state and local level to pass laws that disallow this kind of emminent domain. its not that it HAS to be legal, its that its not unconstitutional.

talk to your city councillor or state rep to see what can be done.
Actually, it is unconstitutional, it's just that apparently 5 judges have gone completely fucking senile.

As mariage is a religious rite I would file it under fredom of religion, first amendment. My high Priestess (or myself for that matter, I am an ordained minister) could within our religion marry two men or two women but unlike a Christian mariage of one man and one woman it will not be recognised, this creates a special status for religions like certain sects of Christianity where only a man and a woman may be married.
The question is marriage as it is framed in the eyes of the law, which is different from being just married by a priest. Which is why the law should instead be called civil unions which any two human beings over the age of 18 can enter and marriage is defined by whatever religious sect one follows.

Actually, it is unconstitutional, it's just that apparently 5 judges have gone completely fucking senile.
Well most of the ones that should be retiring are afraid to do to who would replace them, and I don't blame them

They can also drop a large block of concrete on your tank, using a helicopter or even a plane.
The british tried that on Iraqi tanks and it worked very well. No explosion, no collateral damage. Dropping concrete blocks with flaps.

As mariage is a religious rite I would file it under fredom of religion, first amendment. My high Priestess (or myself for that matter, I am an ordained minister) could within our religion marry two men or two women but unlike a Christian mariage of one man and one woman it will not be recognised, this creates a special status for religions like certain sects of Christianity where only a man and a woman may be married.

And the fifth ammendment is supposed to stop this kind of thing.

People should face it, the bill of rights doesn't mean anything anymore. :(

Ihatevacations']Well most of the ones that should be retiring are afraid to do to who would replace them, and I don't blame them

I can't imagine why you don't blame them. Obviously todays decision leaves little valid reason to keep them around and the worst thing that could happen is more of the same.

Liverbreath']I can't imagine why you don't blame them. Obviously todays decision leaves little valid reason to keep them around and the worst thing that could happen is more of the same.

True that, one of them could have voted not.

I suspect it is not because they are senile, but rather that they have never ideologically supported property rights in the first place.

Liverbreath']I can't imagine why you don't blame them. Obviously todays decision leaves little valid reason to keep them around and the worst thing that could happen is more of the same.
Worse actually. What do you think would happen if the court was run 6-3 straight crazy right wingers, I don't mean normal ones, I mean Clarence Thomas class people.

Ihatevacations']Worse actually. What do you think would happen if the court was run 6-3 straight crazy right wingers, I don't mean normal ones, I mean Clarence Thomas class people.

Err... that governments wouldn't be able to seize your house for the benefit of propety developers who promised to pay more in tax?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427700

*sigh* you beat me by 1 minute...

This is a pretty crap ruling. I'm not exactly a libertarian, but this just smacks of corporate whoredom.

Err... that governments wouldn't be able to seize your house for the benefit of propety developers who promised to pay more in tax?

I doubt it; this law seems (to me at least) to have more with sucking up to big buisness than property rights as such.

you work on your state and local level to pass laws that disallow this kind of emminent domain. its not that it HAS to be legal, its that its not unconstitutional.

talk to your city councillor or state rep to see what can be done.
That's the right answer. My statements were more out of exasperation than anything else. Believe me, I do write and call our local officials when I see a problem. They know me on sight at our local functions.

Ihatevacations']Worse actually. What do you think would happen if the court was run 6-3 straight crazy right wingers, I don't mean normal ones, I mean Clarence Thomas class people.

Look, let me run this by you once more. Right wingers support individual property rights. It is the Left Wingers that did not. For all the virtues the left may hold for many, the simple fact is, that it is the left that supports governments right to take your property. It really is that simple. Hard to swallow and it isn't right, but that's the left like it or not.

Well, the 5-4 decision involved the 5 most liberal, read communist, judges on the supreme court.

Oh yes, the judges who were put on the Supreme Court when the USA was fighting Communism all over the world are, in fact, communist. Way to think

Oh yes, the judges who were put on the Supreme Court when the USA was fighting Communism all over the world are, in fact, communist. Way to think

He doesn't. Thought I'd just give you that hint before you try debating.

Liberal means communist eh? Well I guess you better ally with China, sever all ties with Europe and get building walls.

I doubt it; this law seems (to me at least) to have more with sucking up to big buisness than property rights as such.

Well, except that this use of eminent domain was conceived by democrats originally, in this case was implemented by democrats and was supported by the democrats appointees to the supreme court. And the only people who seem to be opposing it at the moment are conservatives.

But I am sure you are right, its all the fault of the conservative justices who oppose it.

And you know everyday I thank god that even though I live in a country where my house can be condemned - at well below its actual value - because some property developer wants to build a block of condos, I am at least free of the harassment of having a picture of a church on the county seal. YAY bill of rights.

Liverbreath']Look, let me run this by you once more. Right wingers support individual property rights. It is the Left Wingers that did not. For all the virtues the left may hold for many, the simple fact is, that it is the left that supports governments right to take your property. It really is that simple. Hard to swallow and it isn't right, but that's the left like it or not.
...and? A 6-3 hard right wing court would turn this nation into a theocracy because teh supreme court would no longer be a safe haven for people trying to get the government out of their personal lives

That's the right answer. My statements were more out of exasperation than anything else. Believe me, I do write and call our local officials when I see a problem. They know me on sight at our local functions.

Surely, though, because this implicates the bill of rights it should require more than just deference to state legislatures.

I am sure that if the first ammendment was treated this way, then there would be a stink to high heaven.

Well, except that this use of eminent domain was conceived by democrats originally, in this case was implemented by democrats and was supported by the democrats appointees to the supreme court. And the only people who seem to be opposing it at the moment are conservatives.

But I am sure you are right, its all the fault of the conservative justices who oppose it.

And you know everyday I thank god that even though I live in a country where my house can be condemned - at well below its actual value - because some property developer wants to build a block of condos, I am at least free of the harassment of having a picture of a church on the county seal. YAY bill of rights.
Funny you should mention that. I was just counting my blessings over how protected I am from the ten commandments.

I doubt it; this law seems (to me at least) to have more with sucking up to big buisness than property rights as such.

Your wrong. What this had to do with is the lame reasons that local governments had been using to take land and sell it, or sit on it for future investment. Even businesses are getting squeezed out around here. In fact the City of Overland Park actually condemmed a brand new Buick dealership because he negotiated a lower property tax than they wanted, so they took it back and now sit on it. Local governments are sucking up land left and right, supposedly for future development, and just sitting on it, which would have been left to investors. Strictly a land grab just like the ones the Fed spent so many years in the name of parks and recreation, which no one can set foot on. It gives them uncontrolled and total dominion over our property.

Surely, though, because this implicates the bill of rights it should require more than just deference to state legislatures.

I am sure that if the first ammendment was treated this way, then there would be a stink to high heaven.
You do remember how the New York Times got its new facilities, don't you? I don't imagine they would come out against this decision any time soon.

Funny you should mention that. I was just counting my blessings over how protected I am from the ten commandments.

Yes, I am frightened of that too. I am sure it will give me no end of comfort when I am in my government approved hovel.

You do remember how the New York Times got its new facilities, don't you? I don't imagine they would come out against this decision any time soon.

Which one? The one in Queens?

Ihatevacations']...and? A 6-3 hard right wing court would turn this nation into a theocracy because teh supreme court would no longer be a safe haven for people trying to get the government out of their personal lives

Oh my, have you really been buying into all that garbage? That's the silliest damn thing they've ever put out. It is as stupid and unrealistic as saying they are going to start the draft. No matter what they tell you, those people make up a tiny fraction of conservatives. Very Very tiny. You are being played like a fiddle my friend. I feel so bad that they can say things like that and get away with it. Please do yourself a huge favor and when they start yelling about judges being extreme right and are going to start a theocracy and stuff, go do some research on the individual yourself and not depend what they are claiming. You will find a very different picture than what they draw.

Which one? The one in Queens?
The one I was thinking about is at Times Square. The City of New York decided that the NY Times would be a better steward of a corner than the present owner. His family has only owned the property for the last 100 years.

CBS is actually on board against this. Maybe is just red-on-red fighting in the news business.

Funny you should mention that. I was just counting my blessings over how protected I am from the ten commandments.

hehe I am not religous at all, but perhaps it may be prudent to take a self inventory if you need to be protected from it? Just a thought, but I don't seem to recall anything in there too terribly unreasonable.

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?

This is the result of statism that perverts any system.

The one I was thinking about is at Times Square. The City of New York decided that the NY Times would be a better steward of a corner than the present owner. His family has only owned the property for the last 100 years.

CBS is actually on board against this. Maybe is just red-on-red fighting in the news business.

Oh okay, because the seized a whole bunch of property in queens a while back to build a priniting facility.

Still after the way the world trade center was developed, nothing surprises me.

Liverbreath']hehe I am not religous at all, but perhaps it may be prudent to take a self inventory if you need to be protected from it? Just a thought, but I don't seem to recall anything in there too terribly unreasonable.

"Thou shalt have no god before me" sounds pretty damned unreasonable to those who don't worship that god.

Here is a good article (http://www.ij.org/private_property/new_york/backgrounder.html) that explains the history, no, make that the demise of eminent domain as a governmental tool. It also addresses the issue with the New York Times land grab.

They can also drop a large block of concrete on your tank, using a helicopter or even a plane.
The british tried that on Iraqi tanks and it worked very well. No explosion, no collateral damage. Dropping concrete blocks with flaps.

hahaha That is sooo wrong! I love it. Tank killers at 75.00 per square yard. :D

Liverbreath']Oh my, have you really been buying into all that garbage? That's the silliest damn thing they've ever put out. It is as stupid and unrealistic as saying they are going to start the draft. No matter what they tell you, those people make up a tiny fraction of conservatives. Very Very tiny. You are being played like a fiddle my friend. I feel so bad that they can say things like that and get away with it. Please do yourself a huge favor and when they start yelling about judges being extreme right and are going to start a theocracy and stuff, go do some research on the individual yourself and not depend what they are claiming. You will find a very different picture than what they draw.
Buying into what garbage? I don't listen to the second hand bullshit, I read it first hand. You are the one who has been sipping on what the political right brought to the party obviously

Thomas's dissent in Lawrence v Texas: the law was silly, but there was nothing in teh Cosntitution that allowed people the right to privacy

"Thou shalt have no god before me" sounds pretty damned unreasonable to those who don't worship that god.

I hate to tell you this, but if that one is hanging heavily over your head. There aint shit the constitution, government or the left can do to help you because we're all in the same boat! Personally, I'd take it under advisement and drive on.

Since the subject came up in another thread, here is the information about the coolest weapon to be used in GW2: the British Concrete Intertial Bomb. Let's call them "BCIB". Or whatever else.

It's basically a bomb-shaped 1000 lb block of concrete with a simple guidance system (flaps, basically). Low price, low tech, high efficiency. All you need is a good plane to carry it over the tank and drop it with a high-precision laser guidance system. And then... CRASH! SPLAT! BOINK!

If you miss your target, oh well. You just wasted some fuel and maybe 50$ worth of low-tech equipment. And if your plane is threatened during its mission, just drop the block and go back home -- it's OK.

These blocks are colored in blue, so that after the war they are identified as "non explosive ordnance" and easily cleared.

In a game system, I'd say the market price of a concrete bomb would be around 50$-100$ max. With a discount for high volume.

========

British set to drop bomb with no blast
April 7 2003

Ali al Salem air base, Kuwait: Britain's Royal Air Force is preparing to drop a new weapon on Iraqi forces - lumps of blue concrete to knock out tanks without causing a devastating explosion.

It may not be the most high-tech weaponry available, but Group Captain Simon Dobb said the bomb-shaped 1000-pound concrete blocks were highly effective weapons.

"We have the option of using these inert bombs," said Captain Dobb, commander of the Tornado detachment at Ali al Salem air base, in northern Kuwait.

"They still have the guidance and steering methods of other high-explosive weapons but the risk of causing civilian casualties is greatly reduced."

Dropped from height and with laser guidance, the concrete bombs can destroy a tank without destroying surrounding buildings.

"There is the impact, without a massive explosive effect. It's all about proportionality."

[...]

===========================

PS:
But what I'd like to see some day is the "molten lava bomb". It would be a double-shelled inertial bomb, containing a mix of super-heated (liquefied) rock/metal materials. The contents would be liquefied using a laser oven in the air base, and then the "armed" bombs would be loaded & carried by a plane. Just drop 'em on enemy vehicules and troops. Fun fun.

Liverbreath']I hate to tell you this, but if that one is hanging heavily over your head. There aint shit the constitution, government or the left can do to help you because we're all in the same boat! Personally, I'd take it under advisement and drive on.

Um, I think we're having two different discusions here . . . I read "protected from the 10 comandments" as protected from the comandments being enforced by our government. How exactly are we all in the same boat?

Ihatevacations']Buying into what garbage? I don't listen to the second hand bullshit, I read it first hand. You are the one who has been sipping on what the political right brought to the party obviously

Thomas's dissent in Lawrence v Texas: the law was silly, but there was nothing in teh Cosntitution that allowed people the right to privacy

Well, obviously there is nothing I can say that will change your mind so I will only offer you my best wishes and my hopes that you are not adversley affected by the changing of the judicial picture at the highest level. It is inevitable and there is nothing now that the left can do to stop it, try as they might. Had they had more foresight maybe so, but it is on their shoulders and through their own abuses that this has come to pass. As long as the leadership stays the same within the democratic party this trend will continue. Personally, I really hope you all will realize it, and get rid of some of these folks. Siding with the right is not always a piece of cake. A viable choice once again would be welcomed.

Um, I think we're having two different discusions here . . . I read "protected from the 10 comandments" as protected from the comandments being enforced by our government. How exactly are we all in the same boat?

haha I was reading it as the government protecting us from the 10 commandments. :D

Liverbreath']haha I was reading it as the government protecting us from the 10 commandments. :D

Since they only apply to Christians, Jews, and Muslims no one realy needs protection from the comandments themselves.

Black from the Daily Show: Operation penny drop: drop bags of pennies on the enemies to defeat them and the natives can go around collecting the pennies from everybody and we won't have to put so much moeny everywhere

Um, I think we're having two different discusions here . . . I read "protected from the 10 comandments" as protected from the comandments being enforced by our government. How exactly are we all in the same boat?

I think the point is that many people have an apoplexy if they see the ten commandments on public property. Like the wall of an old courthouse. Yet at the same time, there seems to be no worries that the government can turf people out of their homes at a price far below what was paid for it.

Personally, I know which one bothers me the most. But as I said, I am sure that as long as no-one has to look at a picture of a church on a county seal, we can be sure that the bill of rights is being properly enforced.

Liverbreath']hehe I am not religous at all, but perhaps it may be prudent to take a self inventory if you need to be protected from it? Just a thought, but I don't seem to recall anything in there too terribly unreasonable.
I didn't think people would take this literally. It was just a tongue in cheek comment about how the first amendment is over interpreted, yet this part of the fifth amendment is just ignored.

What's next? Quartering troops?

I think the point is that many people have an apoplexy if they see the ten commandments on public property. Like the wall of an old courthouse. Yet at the same time, there seems to be no worries that the government can turf people out of their homes at a price far below what was paid for it.

Personally, I know which one bothers me the most. But as I said, I am sure that as long as no-one has to look at a picture of a church on a county seal, we can be sure that the bill of rights is being properly enforced.

Stands while clapping loudly...Frames post...salutes post and heads out the door to find a conservative to vote for.

I didn't think people would take this literally. It was just a tongue in cheek comment about how the first amendment is over interpreted, yet this part of the fifth amendment is just ignored.

What's next? Quartering troops?

hehe I dont really thing anyone really is taking it too literally. I think we all know we're screwed whether we're coming or going anyway.

Actually, it is unconstitutional, it's just that apparently 5 judges have gone completely fucking senile.
well i cant see that you could possibly be right

1) they know constitutional law better than you do

2) when the supreme court rules something is constitutional it is constitional until overruled or changed.

while i find this particular form of emminent domain to be utterly unamerican, i can see where its not that big a step from the kind of emminent domain we can probably all agree with .... stealing a persons land for schools, roads, dams etc.

we have gotten so used to the feds and the supreme court controlling everything that we forget that there are lots of jurisdictions in this country that we might have some influence in. we can get our city to pass an ordinance outlawing this kind of practice. we can do the same at the county and state level. we could even conceivably do it at a national level.

that it is constitutional doesnt mean we have to do it.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Oh. Wait. You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone.

No, dumbass, that's what the Supreme Court just said. "Property RIGHTS". If you can have it taken away by fiat and given to someone else, it's not yours.
This violates the very concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY, which is one of the key tenets of our founding documents. What the court just did, is grossly socialist, and violates the fundamental concept of Property.

Wouldn't the concrete blocks qualify as a step back in technology, though?

1) they know constitutional law better than you do

Obviously they don’t.

Form the Fifth Amendment:
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

2) when the supreme court rules something is constitutional it is constitional until overruled or changed.

Once again,
From Article VI:
“The Constitution… (things such as treaties and laws are listed) shall be the Supreme Law of the land…”
Only an amendment legally changes the constitution.

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?
I'm sure someone has already addressed this...but this is NOT Capitalism. This is some kind of sick mixture of Socialism and Corporatism. :headbang:

Also, if you notice: the 5 judges that voted FOR this psychotic decision are all the left-leaning ones (Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer & Stevens).

If this isn't judicial activism, I have no clue as to what is. :mad:

Form the Fifth Amendment:
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Apparently, that's how the 5 ratbastards ruled FOR this....because it's private property taken and given to others for private use, not public use.

Obviously they don’t.

Form the Fifth Amendment:
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Yeah but you ARE compensated under eminent domain. So I don't think this really applies. I think the real question is if this is actually FOR public use. I have no problem with eminent domain in certain times (i.e. eliminating slums to build hospitals) but I really don't think that this ruling does in fact reflect public use.

Public use is not the same as public interest.

I think the point is that many people have an apoplexy if they see the ten commandments on public property. Like the wall of an old courthouse. Yet at the same time, there seems to be no worries that the government can turf people out of their homes at a price far below what was paid for it.

Personally, I know which one bothers me the most. But as I said, I am sure that as long as no-one has to look at a picture of a church on a county seal, we can be sure that the bill of rights is being properly enforced.

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I worry about both. After all posting the comandments on government property is a defacto government ENDORSMENT of them. As for the government stealing someones property I think I've established my opinion of that as well :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Yeah but you ARE compensated under eminent domain. So I don't think this really applies. I think the real question is if this is actually FOR public use.

Thus, the bold lettering of public.

Public use is not the same as public interest.

Amen.

Apparently, that's how the 5 ratbastards ruled FOR this....because it's private property taken and given to others for private use, not public use.

Yeah. I’m sure they were thinking the whole time that this was what the Founding Fathers intended.

Just proves that there is only one party in the US: the rich.Dump 'em all. Vote Libertarian.

June 23, 2005



Supreme Court Rules American Homes Can Now Be Seized for Private Use

(Washington, D.C.) The Supreme Court ruled today that local governments have broad power to confiscate private property in the name of "economic development."

They handed down a 5-4 ruling against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who claimed the city is trying to illegally force them to sell their property. The city wants to make way for a hotel, an office building and other privately funded facilities.

Government agencies including city and county governments have long been allowed to condemn private property so that public buildings, roads and other infrastructure can be built. Called "eminent domain," this practice is constitutional as long as the power is exercised strictly in accordance with the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." However, the new ruling will allow local governments to claim property for the benefit for private entities, rather than restricting eminent domain to acquiring land for public use.

"This ruling sets a frightening precedent that will affect poor and middle class families across the nation." said Michael Dixon, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Dazzled by the possibility of increasing tax revenue and employment opportunities, local government officials will now be able to claim entire communities for the benefit of private corporations."

While the Libertarian Party supports the right of corporations to do business, "we even more strongly support the constitutional rights of the individual," Dixon declared. "And those constitutional rights are being trampled on by local governments around the country."

Because the Supreme Court's decision gives government agencies much broader power to confiscate private property, the Libertarian Party calls on both state legislatures and Congress to stand up for the rights of private landowners.

"This country was founded on the principle that people have the right to protect their lives, their lands and their liberty," Dixon said. "It is the sworn duty of elected officials to stand up for the individual rights of their constituents. Now is the time for them to do so."

Libertarian Party [info@lp.org]

You know, people fret about "Their Rights" but don't bother knowing what those rights are. they fret about "abortion" and "Gay Marraiges"... but this is the kind of shit that my ancestors picked up muskets and shot at King George's men over.

"Life, Liberty, and Property", folks.
"JUST Compensation", not "just Compensation", but compensation delivered commensurate to that which is taken.

It may be time for the Real conservatives to start organizing the next Federal Enema and commence to the tossing out of bastards in Congress and the Executive in the next election. With the Constitution being used as Judicial Toilet-paper by these (censored-censored), we need to get on with some serious reaming to make sure the next man appointed isn't a (bleep)ing Corporate Royalist, Socialist thief, or Fascist (Bleep)-licker.

It is not the proper role of the Judiciary to provide enablement and assistance to wealthy private organizations in stealing the property of Citizens for benefits that are speculative at best.

Yeah but you ARE compensated under eminent domain. So I don't think this really applies.

Hm... the "fair market value" of a peice of property that has been condemmed and not allowed to be sold is.... ZERO. The corporate interests/developers who are pushing this whole eminent domain crap are doing so because they DON'T have to pay "Fair Market" to the owners.

I think the real question is if this is actually FOR public use. I have no problem with eminent domain in certain times (i.e. eliminating slums to build hospitals) but I really don't think that this ruling does in fact reflect public use. Public use is not the same as public interest.
Though it is actually about a "public use" case, 'yall should watch the Ausie movie "The Castle". It addresses this whole nightmare.

Yeah. I’m sure they were thinking the whole time that this was what the Founding Fathers intended.
This ruling is the kind of shit we get when lawyers play the "definition of IS" game instead of going with original intent...because THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THAT THIS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.

I can't remember exactly, but I think Congress has the power to impeach SC justices when they step outside the bounds of their positions and misinterpret the Constitution.

I think it's about time WE THE PEOPLE start calling for some judicial impeachments.

I can't remember exactly, but I think Congress has the power to impeach SC justices when they step outside the bounds of their positions and misinterpret the Constitution.

I think it's about time WE THE PEOPLE start calling for some judicial impeachments.
Oh please, like the legislature knows how to interpret teh constitution? My ass. Congress people of any state are overpaid whiny bitches, they go into a room and sit around OCCASIONALLY getting shit done but mostly bitching at each other. If I recall, you can only remove a Justice for gross misbehavior. Ruling in a manner that you disagree with is not misbehavior. The people can call for whatever they want the day they are educated, which is obviously not now.

And the fifth ammendment is supposed to stop this kind of thing.

People should face it, the bill of rights doesn't mean anything anymore. :(

See where gun control has gotten us?? :(

Ihatevacations']If I recall, you can only remove a Justice for gross misbehavior. Ruling in a manner that you disagree with is not misbehavior. The people can call for whatever they want the day they are educated, which is obviously not now.
I'd call ruling directly against the original intent of the Constitution constitutes gross misbehavior.

Also, I think that has to be the biggest load of ELITEST BULLSHIT I have ever heard on NS. :mad:

Dump 'em all. Vote Libertarian.

I voted for Perot. That didn't help, either.

See where gun control has gotten us?? :(
This thread is being bombarded by rightwing nutcases, for the lack of a better word, and is being taken over by partisan hackery. I petition it be closed immediately, it is no longer about the supreme court's decision so much as an attempt by the extreme rightwing on this board to villify "liberals"

I'd call ruling directly against the original intent of the Constitution constitutes gross misbehavior.
It is their job as the Supreme Court to INTERPRET the meaning of the purposefully ambiguous Constitution. You cannot declare rulnig something you dislike gross misconduct, grow up

Also, I think that has to be the biggest load of ELITEST BULLSHIT I have ever heard on NS.
I will say I believe myself far more educated about political matters than a good majority of America. And, elitist bullshit? Pot, kettle. Black. You just implied you know more about the original intent of the Constitution than the people appointed to interpret its meaning.

I'd call ruling directly against the original intent of the Constitution constitutes gross misbehavior.

Also, I think that has to be the biggest load of ELITEST BULLSHIT I have ever heard on NS. :mad:
Meanwhile, Congress worries about whether or not to have an amendment to outlaw political expression. I know my Rep and Senators are going to get an earfull about what they're doing wrong.

This ruling is the kind of shit we get when lawyers play the "definition of IS" game instead of going with original intent...because THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THAT THIS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.

I hope you know I was being sarcastic, and that those capital letters are directed at others. Oh, and I agree with you on that last part, although I might have worded it differently.

I can't remember exactly, but I think Congress has the power to impeach SC justices when they step outside the bounds of their positions and misinterpret the Constitution.

Article 2, Section 4-"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States.

Article 2, Section 4-". . .on impeachment for, and on conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors."

The definition for misdemeanor, at the time, didn’t mean lesser crime however. It meant more an unethical act.

I think it's about time WE THE PEOPLE start calling for some judicial impeachments.

Agreed.

Ihatevacations']This thread is being bombarded by rightwing nutcases, for the lack of a better word, and is being taken over by partisan hackery. I petition it be closed immediately, it is no longer about the supreme court's decision so much as an attempt by the extreme rightwing on this board to villify "liberals"

:p

Since you're new, I'm going to be polite. My entire philosophy is for the most liberal reading of the Bill of Rights, and that the government should not infringe upon any of them. For that reason, once you successfully assault one Amendment, you've assaulted them all.

Guns, words, the right to gather and petition... these are all the same thing. The same piece of paper that allows me to call every Democrat since FDR an asshole for proposing gun control is the same piece of paper that lets you call Bush a fucking fascist for having the police break up the protesters at the GOP convention in New York.

Ihatevacations']You just implied you know more about the original intent of the Constitution than the people appointed to interpret its meaning.
Anyone with half a fucking brain and a year of basic US History can tell that this decision goes DIRECTLY against original intent.

I'm really starting to wonder about your "education".

Irregardless, this thread has been turned from a discussion of teh USSC decision into a villification of liberals by the board's rightwing, sadly to no surprise

Anyone with half a fucking brain and a year of basic US History can tell that this decision goes DIRECTLY against original intent.
That's funny, because they don't go into alot of Constitutional history and discussion in US history. I'm glad you are so smart as to know more about the Constitution than the people appointed to INTERPRET it.

I'm really starting to wonder about your "education".
College prep US history, AP government based around the "We the people" competition - specifically for the purpose of arguing points based on the Constitution, opinions of the founders, USSC rulings, etc.

Kiss my ass, elitist

So what the hell do we do? I can't advocate overthrowing the government.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Can't you?

On-topic, this is a blindingly stupid law whoever suggested it. Has anyone actually defended it yet? On here, I mean.

:p

Since you're new, I'm going to be polite. My entire philosophy is for the most liberal reading of the Bill of Rights, and that the government should not infringe upon any of them. For that reason, once you successfully assault one Amendment, you've assaulted them all.

Guns, words, the right to gather and petition... these are all the same thing. The same piece of paper that allows me to call every Democrat since FDR an asshole for proposing gun control is the same piece of paper that lets you call Bush a fucking fascist for having the police break up the protesters at the GOP convention in New York.Like I said. Fire 'em all. None of ' em (ex maybe Ron Paul) are worth the load I just left to the treatment plant. :headbang:

My entire philosophy is for the most liberal reading of the Bill of Rights
Most liberal reading....out of curiosity does that correspond more with strict or loose constructionism?

Ihatevacations]Quote:
Also, I think that has to be the biggest load of ELITEST BULLSHIT I have ever heard on NS.


I will say I believe myself far more educated about political matters than a good majority of America.

You should have quit while you were ahead, or at least, when you were slightly less behind. :p Would you care to enlighten us as to the constitutionality of this particular ruling? Considering your vastly superior education, after all.

Irregardless, this thread has been turned from a discussion of teh USSC decision into a villification of liberals by the board's rightwing, sadly to no surprise

If its right-wing to defend basic property rights, then I guess I am.

On-topic, this is a blindingly stupid law whoever suggested it. Has anyone actually defended it yet? On here, I mean

Not sure, but I saw a tool on the news trying to defend it. He claimed that you could get local governments to pass legislation to protect property rights. The same governments that want to take your land in the first place. Honestly, though, I can hardley believe this is happening in the US. It seems mildly surreal.

Not sure, but I saw a tool on the news trying to defend it. He claimed that you could get local governments to pass legislation to protect property rights. The same governments that want to take your land in the first place. Honestly, though, I can hardley believe this is happening in the US. It seems mildly surreal.
It was back in the Jeffersonian era when Jefferson purported the doctrine of nullification, where local/state governments could nullify laws of the Federal government deemed un-Constitutional....sadly, this archaic (but still quite relevant) defense of liberty now appears to be subjugated.

Dammit, where the Hell is my state government when I need it to defend my rights? Oh yes, snug in the pocket of those damn Feds! :mp5:

Ihatevacations]College prep US history, AP government based around the "We the people" competition - specifically for the purpose of arguing points based on the Constitution, opinions of the founders, USSC rulings, etc.

All that and still so ignorant, seems kind of a waste. Incidentally, where, exactly, did you partake in these courses?

All that and still so ignorant, seems kind of a waste. Incidentally, where, exactly, did you partake in these courses?
And why pray tell am I ignorant? Do you have any real reason or you just talking out your ass?

Can't you?

On-topic, this is a blindingly stupid law whoever suggested it. Has anyone actually defended it yet? On here, I mean.
I like my job and that question shows up from time to time on questionairres that I submit. Answering the wrong way would severely limit my usefulness to my company.

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote: “An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social com¬pact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legis¬lative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more bene¬ficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amend¬ment.

-From Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent, Kelo v. New London (2005)

Most liberal reading....out of curiosity does that correspond more with strict or loose constructionism?
Judging by Mark's past posts, I think he is a strong proponent of individual rights.

All that and still so ignorant, seems kind of a waste. Incidentally, where, exactly, did you partake in these courses?
High school doesn't prepare people for critical thinking.

High school doesn't prepare people for critical thinking.
I would love for some one to explain the reasons two peopelare calling me ignorant, unless they love to feel pointlessly superior

High school doesn't prepare people for critical thinking.

Well aware of that.

Ihatevacations]I would love for some one to explain the reasons two peopelare calling me ignorant, unless they love to feel pointlessly superior

Well, I can’t speak for Mymidonisia, but I believe you are ignorant because you are blatantly mis-interpreting the constitution at the behest of five old judges that you have no emotional tie to. Perhaps ignorance was the wrong word. Weak willed seems more like it.

Most liberal reading....out of curiosity does that correspond more with strict or loose constructionism?
Funny how words change.

The most "liberal" reading of the Constitution would be the one which restricts the least - in keeping with the concept of limited federal government... that is, the most Strict Construction interpretation of the words. They mean what they say and nothing more. No "penumbras" or "emminations" just the words as defined when written.

You know, I thought they already could do that....

Well, I can’t speak for Mymidonisia, but I believe you are ignorant because you are blatantly mis-interpreting the constitution at the behest of five old judges that you have no emotional tie to. Perhaps ignorance was the wrong word. Weak willed seems more like it.
Where in this thread have I even attempted an interpretation of the Constitution, quote me please, can't be too hard. Shit, even better yet, find in this thread and quote me where I supported this decision. Go to page 1, surprise.

Here is a good article (http://www.ij.org/private_property/new_york/backgrounder.html) that explains the history, no, make that the demise of eminent domain as a governmental tool. It also addresses the issue with the New York Times land grab.


Shocking. I didn't know this was going on.

Ihatevacations]Where in this thread have I even attempted an interpretation of the Constitution, quote me please, can't be too hard. Shit, even better yet, find in this thread and quote me where I supported this decision. Go to page 1, surprise

I wasn’t referring to your position on this issue. I was referring to your erroneous position that, somehow people of certain ideologies shouldn’t be able to state their views and that the average citizen shouldn’t have a say in government if five old judges tell them notto. If you were really against this, you would recognize how blatantly illegal it is, and would gladly join “right-wingers” in condemning the Supreme Court.

I wasn’t referring to your position on this issue. I was referring to your erroneous position that, somehow people of certain ideologies shouldn’t be able to state their views and that the average citizen shouldn’t have a say in government if five old judges tell them notto. If you were really against this, you would recognize how blatantly illegal it is, and would gladly join “right-wingers” in condemning the Supreme Court.
When did I say any of that?

What I said was "this thread is turning from a discussion about this topic, ie the courts decision, into a rightwing flamefest against liberals because they are fucking obsessed" and that "the average citizen can rise up and do whatever they want when they are educated," the majority of america is not educated enough to have a real reason to rise up and do anything against the government other than emotional obsession.

and I CONDEMNED THIS FUCKING DECISION, with your other statements I guess I don't need to question your reading comprehension

Ihatevacations']I would love for some one to explain the reasons two peopelare calling me ignorant, unless they love to feel pointlessly superior
My post was a generalization of what high school does. If I were going to call you ignorant, I'd probably do it based on your ranting over how badly liberals are being maligned in this thread. Not so much the substance of the posts, but the language is particularly ignorant. Profanity is only a substitute for well chosen words when the speaker is ignorant of what he could be saying.

This is nothing new, simply a reaffirmation of the "right of eminent domain." Governments have always had the right to appropriate private property provided they reimburse the owner, usually for "fair market value."

The BIG difference, Eutrusca, is that it used to be for schools, roads, dams and other public works projects.

Now, it is to 'improve the tax base'.

And "just compensation" does not always mean "enough to purchase another home in a reasonably safe area."

They're doing a lot of this in Atlantic City now -- turning 80 year olds who've been living in their bungalows for 50 years out, so they can build more timeshares, casinos and parking lots.

It's morally wrong, wrong, wrong.

whoa my husband just saw a CNN poll where 99% of the people disagreed with the supreme court ruling.

I guess this is the dark side of capitalism.

btw, by seize you mean take it with power as the dictatorship regimes, or you mean give the people other home and some damages money and take their home?

No. It isn't. Capitalism means that the one who wants the property has to keep offering more and more money until the people who have it agree to the sale. This is the dark side of corporate socialism. Well, a dark side of corporate socialism.

Umm, Ikea is big on this actually, not Wal-mart.

Even funnier, Ikea will have people turned out then back out of the deal, after it has made some homeless people. Oh those crazy swedes.

Still, what did you expect, that the ACLU would try and stop this? They have important NAMBLA work.

I suppose the NRA will stand by you when you stand your ground with a rifle to shoot the construction workers who come to level your home, or the sherrif who comes to escort you off of the property? :rolleyes:

whoa my husband just saw a CNN poll where 99% of the people disagreed with the supreme ruling.

Yes, but I am sure that a lot of people are quitely happy about this.

whoa my husband just saw a CNN poll where 99% of the people disagreed with the supreme ruling.

Next you're going to tell me that we're upset with gasoline prices. :D

...wait. Shouldn't that be :( ?

Judging by Mark's past posts, I think he is a strong proponent of individual rights.

Exactly. :)

Unfortunately, life today is one of evaporating rights. I think it goes hand in hand with society's turn towards lack of responsibility. No one is ever held responsible anymore. :(

whoa my husband just saw a CNN poll where 99% of the people disagreed with the supreme court ruling.

MSN was at 98% last I saw.

Next you're going to tell me that we're upset with gasoline prices. :D

...wait. Shouldn't that be :( ?

i dont understand your point.

MSN was at 98% last I saw.

Yeah, but the +/- 3% margin of error means that 101% of America could be against it. ;)

Yeah, but the +/- 3% margin of error means that 101% of America could be against it. ;)

That could happen w/ Chicago voters. :)

i dont understand your point.

I'm agreeing with you. The idea that anybody would *like* this is incomprehensible.

MSN was at 98% last I saw.
is that a "real" poll or one of those call in things? 98 and 99% is rather high for a real poll

is that a "real" poll or one of those call in things? 98 and 99% is rather high for a real poll

Just an online thing but still....

is that a "real" poll or one of those call in things? 98 and 99% is rather high for a real poll
"live" "unscientific survey" is at 97% against

if those are real numbers, then sending a quick email to your various reps would have a big effect right now. they could jump right on it if they think the public is behind them demanding it.

if those are real numbers, then sending a quick email to your various reps would have a big effect right now. they could jump right on it if they think the public is behind them demanding it.

I did that as (local & fed) as soon as I heard this BS.

Ihatevacations']Well most of the ones that should be retiring are afraid to do to who would replace them, and I don't blame them
Except, of course, none of the ones up for immediate retirement took the majority position. They were in the minority, read sane, position. Your argument doesn't fly.

Yeah I;ve been following this from teh beginning. I can't remember exact etails but it started with some people that lived in some very old homes built and owned by their parents and grandparents. They now have to give up their childhood homes which they own because they want to build stores. There was talk abotu zoning it so that they could live there while they build around them but I guess thats not an option anymore eh?

I suppose the NRA will stand by you when you stand your ground with a rifle to shoot the construction workers who come to level your home, or the sherrif who comes to escort you off of the property? :rolleyes:

No, and I don't expect them to. Nor have they ever claimed that they would.

The ACLU, however, frequently claims to defend individual rights. I find it telling that in this case however, they have no opinion on a fifth ammendment matter.

Let me ask you this, if in this case it is perfectly acceptable for a local government to determine the scope of the fifth amendment, why is it not in other respects. Does incorporation theory only hold for those rights the ACLU deems we should have; but not all individual rights enumerated in the first ten amendments? And if so, who are the ACLU to make this determination?

Or is it, in fact, the case that the ACLU -despite its name and protestations to the contrary - has no interest in general civil liberties, but is instead an organization interested solely in persuing its own radical political agenda through targeted litigation; knowing full well that it could never muster political support for its goals.

If in fact it is the latter, then the ACLU should recognized for what it is, a group of extreme left wing radicals who raise money to fund the furtherance of a hidden agenda under the guise of an impartial defender of the fundamental rights of americans.

Frankly it is utterly hypocritical, and at the very least the ACLU deserves sharp criticism for its lack of action in this intance. It is also hypocritical for anyone to support the ACLUs lack of action in this instance. (Unless they are prepared to admit that property rights - the most fundamental right in a liberal democracy - should be abolished),

Except, of course, none of the ones up for immediate retirement took the majority position. They were in the minority, read sane, position. Your argument doesn't fly.
Desptie what you all seem to think, this is not the only decision the supreme court has ever made. And most of the justices close to retirement are the liberals and the swing vote o conner + rehnquist

I'm agreeing with you. The idea that anybody would *like* this is incomprehensible.

If you are ideologically opposed to property rights, this is a victory.

I find it disgusting however.

No, and I don't expect them to. Nor have they ever claimed that they would.

The ACLU, however, frequently claims to defend individual rights. I find it telling that in this case however, they have no opinion on a fifth ammendment matter.

Let me ask you this, if in this case it is perfectly acceptable for a local government to determine the scope of the fifth amendment, why is it not in other respects. Does incorporation theory only hold for those rights the ACLU deems we should have but not all individual rights enumerated in the first ten amendments in toto? And if so, who are the ACLU to make this determination?

Or is it, in fact, the case that the ACLU -despite its name and protestations to the contrary - has no interest in general civil liberties, but is instead an organization interested solely in persuing its own radical political agenda through targetted litigation; knowing full well that it could never muster political support for its goals.

If in fact it is the latter, then the ACLU should recognized for what it is, a group of extreme left wing radicals who raise money to fund the furtherance of a hidden agenda under the guise of an impartial defender of the fundamental rights of americans.

Frankly it is utterly hypocritical, and at the very least the ACLU deserves sharp criticism for its lack of action in this intances. It is also hypocritical for anyone to support the ACLUs lack of action in this instance. (Unless they are prepared to admit that property rights - the most fundamental right in a liberal democracy - should be abolished),


Did you lose your tin foil hat?

If you are ideologically opposed to property rights, this is a victory.

I find it disgusting however.

I can almost hear the Mr. Burns types going "excellent!"

Did you lose your tin foil hat?

Yeah, its with your brain and all those books you didn't read. :rolleyes:

That could happen w/ Chicago voters. :)
Seattle voters, too. ;)

I can almost hear the Mr. Burns types going "excellent!"

It's the final nail in the property coffin.

Ten years from now when no one can get a mortgage, people will understand why.

Yeah, its with your brain and all those books you didn't read. :rolleyes:
yes because we al like to frequent the frigid bitch section of the library (for those of you who didn't see the joke in the other topic, that is Ann Coulter books)

Ihatevacations']yes because we al like to frequent the frigid bitch section of the library (for those of you who didn't see the joke in the other topic, that is Ann Coulter books)

I might have lost my hat, but you have clearly lost the plot. If indeed you ever had it in the first place.

I might have lost my hat, but you have clearly lost the plot. If indeed you ever had it in the first place.
Lost the plot? What story were we reading?

You know, I thought they already could do that....

Yes, 60 Minutes reported on this issue back in 2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

And I'm not American, so probably I shouldn't comment, but to me, this is not a Republican/Democrat issue. This is bigger than that.

To me there are three main points:

-- The ability of the private rich to manipulate governments for their personal gain at the expense of the poor and the working class.

-- Tax rates so low that local governments are desperate to increase revenue to provide services.

-- Poor economic circumstancs (in many areas) driving local governments to try ANYTHING to encourage economic revitalization of their area -- even if that promise is just a gleam in the eye of a rapacious developer.

Yes, there are abuses of eminent domain that might not fit those three categories, but I'm betting that covers the majority of them.

BTW, I support the use of eminent domain in the way in which it was intended: for the Public Good. Highways, schools, hospitals, and so forth. Not shopping malls and high end condos.

I strongly suggest lobbying for state laws to protect the definitions of eminent domain that you can support. Or even for an amendment of the amendment to ensure that this kind of misuse is clearly unconstitutional.

Ihatevacations']Lost the plot? What story were we reading?

The one where you have a poor knowledge of the english language apparently.

Ihatevacations']I would love for some one to explain the reasons two peopelare calling me ignorant, unless they love to feel pointlessly superior
Check post number 157. Apparently, given your earlier comment addressing me, Sandra Day O'Conner doesn't know anything about constitutional law either.

I strongly suggest lobbying for state laws to protect the definitions of eminent domain that you can support. Or even for an amendment of the amendment to ensure that this kind of misuse is clearly unconstitutional.

Well given that they ignored the amendment in the first place, I can't see giving them another one would help.

Edit: And just because an area is residential and lower middle class is hardly justification to throw people out of their homes. They want to live there and enjoy their own property, that is their right, regardless that the government could increase tax revenue by turfing them out.

The one where you have a poor knowledge of the english language apparently.
I will not have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, I'm done

Well given that they ignored the amendment in the first place, I can't see giving them another one would help.

Edit: And just because an area is residential and lower middle class is hardly justification to throw people out of their homes. They want to live there and enjoy their own property, that is their right, regardless that the government could increase tax revenue by turfing them out.

I don't believe I said that it was justification. I was just offering three plausible reasons why local governments were actually considering doing these horrible things.

If you can't fix the laws, maybe you can fix the circumstances that make misusing eminent domain appear attractive to local governments. After all, they need to be re-elected -- I suggest that if they felt they had other viable options, they wouldn't choose one that is so obviously likely to piss off so many of the voters.

Ihatevacations']I will not have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, I'm done

You don't even know whats going on do you? You just type stuff - largely irrelevant - and hope it comes out okay.

Well given that they ignored the amendment in the first place, I can't see giving them another one would help.

Edit: And just because an area is residential and lower middle class is hardly justification to throw people out of their homes. They want to live there and enjoy their own property, that is their right, regardless that the government could increase tax revenue by turfing them out.

You can thank your flawless leader Bush and his pro-business/anti-populist administration for that one. Go Republicans weeee!

I don't believe I said that it was justification. I was just offering three plausible reasons why local governments were actually considering doing these horrible things.

If you can't fix the laws, maybe you can fix the circumstances that make misusing eminent domain appear attractive to local governments. After all, they need to be re-elected -- I suggest that if they felt they had other viable options, they wouldn't choose one that is so obviously likely to piss off so many of the voters.

No problem, I knew you didn't support it. I was just trying to point out that poor tax base is a very poor reason to do this type of thing.

And in fact, though many times the claim is that the area is economically non-viable, pretty clearly that is not the case. Developers wouldn't need to use eminent domain if they were buying up property in truly impoverished locales. Owners would be more than happy to find a buyer. If anything, the recent case in New London is quite the opposite.

If you are ideologically opposed to property rights, this is a victory.

I find it disgusting however.

Yep. This is insane. If someone told me that this would have happened yesterday, I'd have thought they were crazy.

You can thank your flawless leader Bush and his pro-business/anti-populist administration for that one. Go Republicans weeee!

Yes, because although this type of use of eminent domain was first put forward by democrats, in this particular case was proposed and approved by democrat local politicians, was supported on the supreme court by democrat appointees, and was only opposed by the most conservative justices, clearly it is all the fault of Bush and the Republicans.

Yes, that's it Bush is to blame here. Well spotted.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the democrats.

Voted For: Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer

Voted Against: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justices Sandra Day O'Conner, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

For those of you keeping score at home:
William Hubbs Rehnquist – Jan 7, 1972 – Nixon
John Paul Stevens - Dec 19, 1975 - Ford
Sandra Day O'Connor - Sep 25, 1981 – Reagan
Antonin Scalia – Sep 26, 1986 – Reagan
Anthony McLeod Kennedy - Feb 18, 1988 – Reagan
David Hackett Souter - Oct 9, 1990 – George H.W. Bush
Clarence Thomas - Oct 23, 1991 – George H.W. Bush
Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg - Aug 10, 1993 - Clinton
Stephen Gerald Breyer - Aug 3, 1994 – Clinton

So while yes, both "Democratic Party Justices" voted for it, so did three "GOP Appointees". Sorry boys n' girls, this is not a partisan issue... this is a travesty. :mad:

whoa my husband just saw a CNN poll where 99% of the people disagreed with the supreme court ruling.
No doubt about it, they are way off. Impeachment, anyone?

No, and I don't expect them to. Nor have they ever claimed that they would.

The ACLU, however, frequently claims to defend individual rights. I find it telling that in this case however, they have no opinion on a fifth ammendment matter.

Let me ask you this, if in this case it is perfectly acceptable for a local government to determine the scope of the fifth amendment, why is it not in other respects. Does incorporation theory only hold for those rights the ACLU deems we should have; but not all individual rights enumerated in the first ten amendments? And if so, who are the ACLU to make this determination?

Or is it, in fact, the case that the ACLU -despite its name and protestations to the contrary - has no interest in general civil liberties, but is instead an organization interested solely in persuing its own radical political agenda through targeted litigation; knowing full well that it could never muster political support for its goals.

If in fact it is the latter, then the ACLU should recognized for what it is, a group of extreme left wing radicals who raise money to fund the furtherance of a hidden agenda under the guise of an impartial defender of the fundamental rights of americans.

Frankly it is utterly hypocritical, and at the very least the ACLU deserves sharp criticism for its lack of action in this intance. It is also hypocritical for anyone to support the ACLUs lack of action in this instance. (Unless they are prepared to admit that property rights - the most fundamental right in a liberal democracy - should be abolished),
First off, it's generally a state branch of the ACLU that leads the charge in state matters. Blame that branch, not the entire organization. Second, the ACLU doesn't have unlimited resources to be chasing after every little case, if you've seen the sheer number of organizations that supported the petitioners you'd understand that the petitioners did not lack for legal support or representation. But hey, if you want them to fight every little battle, donate to the ACLU and give them something to fight with.

No doubt about it, they are way off. Impeachment, anyone?
I'm not sure what part of "unfavorable decision is not misconduct" your people don't understand. Continued support for the majority of the American people arn't educated enough to rise up against anything. Emotionally driven things don't work as well as well thought out ones

It's the final nail in the property coffin.

Ten years from now when no one can get a mortgage, people will understand why.
Wait, that was my metaphor.

No kidding about the long term effects, though. What is a society that doesn't guarantee property ownership? Pretty lousy, anyway.

You can thank your flawless leader Bush and his pro-business/anti-populist administration for that one. Go Republicans weeee!
There's one big stretch in logic. I'd like to see some support for this argument. For instance, how did the GWB administration influence the most liberal judges on the bench to vote this way?

Put a sock in your anti-Administration sour grapes. Or put up the logic to back up the wild claims.

Yep. This is insane. If someone told me that this would have happened yesterday, I'd have thought they were crazy.
I've been waiting for this decision for a while. I read the IoJ website pretty regularly and I knew the decision was coming out today. What a disappointment! I'm still not sure what to make of it.

No doubt about it, they are way off. Impeachment, anyone?

One can't impeach a Justice...

First off, it's generally a state branch of the ACLU that leads the charge in state matters. Blame that branch, not the entire organization. Second, the ACLU doesn't have unlimited resources to be chasing after every little case, if you've seen the sheer number of organizations that supported the petitioners you'd understand that the petitioners did not lack for legal support or representation. But hey, if you want them to fight every little battle, donate to the ACLU and give them something to fight with.while I agree that this is a state matter, I think the ACLU should be looking into this and prodding their state branch into action... this does set a dangerous precident that only a few states are safeguarded against.

I for one don't believe in the ACLU, but if they stood up against this, then my opinions on them will change. maybe not a full 180, but it will change.

I've been waiting for this decision for a while. I read the IoJ website pretty regularly and I knew the decision was coming out today. What a disappointment! I'm still not sure what to make of it.

I've owned my home for 6 years now... This *really* bugs me. I think back to the 70s (back when people had pensions, criminals went to jail in California, trade deficits were OWED to the US, and the Yankees could win) and I don't like where things are going today...

One can't impeach a Justice...
I know. I'm just exasperated with their interpretations of a document that doesn't need it.

Yes, 60 Minutes reported on this issue back in 2003.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

And I'm not American, so probably I shouldn't comment, but to me, this is not a Republican/Democrat issue. This is bigger than that.

To me there are three main points:

-- The ability of the private rich to manipulate governments for their personal gain at the expense of the poor and the working class.

-- Tax rates so low that local governments are desperate to increase revenue to provide services.

-- Poor economic circumstancs (in many areas) driving local governments to try ANYTHING to encourage economic revitalization of their area -- even if that promise is just a gleam in the eye of a rapacious developer.

Yes, there are abuses of eminent domain that might not fit those three categories, but I'm betting that covers the majority of them.

BTW, I support the use of eminent domain in the way in which it was intended: for the Public Good. Highways, schools, hospitals, and so forth. Not shopping malls and high end condos.

I strongly suggest lobbying for state laws to protect the definitions of eminent domain that you can support. Or even for an amendment of the amendment to ensure that this kind of misuse is clearly unconstitutional.

You're right, you have no clue if you believe for a second this is not a republican / democrat thing, because it absolutely is.

What it has nothing to do with is rich vs poor or local governments having tax rates so low they are desprate to raise revenue. These people are actually taking property and giving it away or setting on it for future investments as if it is their own.

This has to do with the power of government to take land from both businesses and residents rich and poor and use it for their own greedy purposes. It is strictly power, and 5 liberals that have decided that the constitution reflects their own opinion. Try as you might, but liberals will pay dearly in near future elections.

Liverbreath'] Try as you might, but liberals will pay dearly in near future elections.
Oh yes, because the court is truly answerable to anyone and irt is all teh liberals fault. further proof the american public are fools, for the most part

while I agree that this is a state matter, I think the ACLU should be looking into this and prodding their state branch into action... this does set a dangerous precident that only a few states are safeguarded against.

I for one don't believe in the ACLU, but if they stood up for this, then my opinions on them will change. maybe not a full 180, but it will change.

Sorry JuNii,
The ACLU supports this. It is what they are all about.

while I agree that this is a state matter, I think the ACLU should be looking into this and prodding their state branch into action... this does set a dangerous precident that only a few states are safeguarded against.

I for one don't believe in the ACLU, but if they stood up for this, then my opinions on them will change. maybe not a full 180, but it will change.

Goody. Then you can start liking the ACLU.

They did not join the many organizations filing amicus briefs in this particular case. The Institute for Justice, which specializes in these cases, already represented the plaintiffs.

But the ACLU has litigated both takings cases and, in particular, similar eminent domain cases.

One example is documented in this article in the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/sandefur200408230840.asp).

Ihatevacations']Oh yes, because the court is truly answerable to anyone and irt is all teh liberals fault. further proof the american public are fools, for the most part

You said this before Ihate. I'll answer it again. Like it or not, as long as judges are appointed by politicians from one side or another they are a direct reflection of their political leanings. Nothing can change that, especially when it just happened to be such a clearly ideological divide.
What I find very interesting however is that there are now two major issues that will assure the near future of either party.
1) Whoever closes the borders and stops the uncontrolled illegal immigration
2) Whoever takes the lead in insuring property rights. (this will not be the democrats because of where they get their funding)

Liverbreath']Sorry JuNii,
The ACLU supports this. It is what they are all about.

Asinine bullshit.

Prove it, sparky.

Goody. Then you can start liking the ACLU.

They did not join the many organizations filing amicus briefs in this particular case. The Institute for Justice, which specializes in these cases, already represented the plaintiffs.

But the ACLU has litigated both takings cases and, in particular, similar eminent domain cases.

One example is documented in this article in the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/sandefur200408230840.asp).
kewl... but let's see them hit the airwaves like they did with those other cases. because Hawaii has also started rumors of doing something like that.

There's one big stretch in logic. I'd like to see some support for this argument. For instance, how did the GWB administration influence the most liberal judges on the bench to vote this way?

Put a sock in your anti-Administration sour grapes. Or put up the logic to back up the wild claims.

I don't believe the Bush Administration filed a brief supporting either side in this case.

Given that the Solicitor General has special authority to weigh in on any case like this, the Bush Administration certainly more open criticism here as the ACLU.

Somehow the ACLU is to blame for not filing a brief, but the Bush Administration isn't?

This just fucking sucks... Private property should be just that private. Sure, regulating what you do with and on it is important, but untimately ownership should be yours. This is a step away from liberty and a step toward tyranny.

That said, the Sups made the correct ruling from the constitution alone. This problem is not the courts, per se, but the laws itself. Eminant domain is the problem, and it should not be a part of our consitution.

Liverbreath']You said this before Ihate. I'll answer it again. Like it or not, as long as judges are appointed by politicians from one side or another they are a direct reflection of their political leanings. Nothing can change that, especially when it just happened to be such a clearly ideological divide.
What I find very interesting however is that there are now two major issues that will assure the near future of either party.
1) Whoever closes the borders and stops the uncontrolled illegal immigration
2) Whoever takes the lead in insuring property rights. (this will not be the democrats because of where they get their funding)
Were you even paying attention when the other guy listed who nominated these judges? Or did you conveniently skip it

By the way, the NAACP (joined by the AARP and the Southern Christian Leadership Council) filed a brief (http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_property/kelo/naacp02.pdf) in support of petitioners (i.e., against the taking.)

1. How do you like that NAACP haters?

2. So much for the liberal conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

Liverbreath']Sorry JuNii,
The ACLU supports this. It is what they are all about.While I may hate the ACLU, I'll wait to hear what they have to say first.

and Cat-tribe, I may not love the ACLU, but my respect for them will increase when I hear from the news that they are putting the same effort they used defending NAMBLA rights.

and I am willing to give them their shot.

Somehow the ACLU is to blame for not filing a brief, but the Bush Administration isn't?

I'm happy to blame both, as well as whomever spiked the Justices' "Ensure" that voted in favor... :(

Asinine bullshit.

Prove it, sparky.

Settle down litte boy.

Liverbreath']Settle down litte boy.

While I'm most certainly not a Cat-Tribe fan (and probably only agree with him 10-25% of the time), you've got to do better than that.

I don't believe the Bush Administration filed a brief supporting either side in this case.

Given that the Solicitor General has special authority to weigh in on any case like this, the Bush Administration certainly more open criticism here as the ACLU.

Somehow the ACLU is to blame for not filing a brief, but the Bush Administration isn't?
well the ACLU has also claimed to stand up for all people's rights, and as fought court rulings before and with more fevor and fire from the get go.

and as you said the Bush admin has taken no side on this case.

but people will blame the Bush Admin because they perceive that the Supreme courts are somehow under Bush's direct control.

me, I'd like to see what the Admin does as well as the ACLU. Give em time to respond people!

While I may hate the ACLU, I'll wait to hear what they have to say first.

and Cat-tribe, I may not love the ACLU, but my respect for them will increase when I hear from the news that they are putting the same effort they used defending NAMBLA rights.

and I am willing to give them their shot.

Ah, the NAMBLA myth. :rolleyes:

Do you know exactly what the ACLU has and has not done for NAMBLA?

Versus what it did for Ollie North, is doing for Rush Limbaugh, etc.?