NationStates Jolt Archive

Liverbreath']Settle down litte boy.

Little boy? ROTFLASTC.

And that would be a "no, I have no proof. I just like defaming the ACLU," right?

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


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's authortarianism

It's authortarianism
and?

Ihatevacations']and?

Oh and a bit of corruption.

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.?No, but like I stated, I'm giving them their chance. everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves.

after all, I'm sure the BOY SCOUTS also deserved what the ACLU did to them.

They can take my house, but they'll never take my freedom!!!!.....I hope :(

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?
Now that you mention it, he's just as much to blame. I'm not a lawyer; it isn't my first thought that the White House should file a brief, but if you say it's proper then it should have been done. This is a pretty fundamental right. If GWB isn't actively for the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then he's just another opportunistic politician.

They can take my house, but they'll never take my freedom!!!!.....I hope :(

Oh, the New World Order will...

Oh and a bit of corruption.
How is that relevant to what I was saying

From what I read of the rulings (all but Thomas' dissent at this point), the issue here isn't the removal of rights. Eminent domain is and has always been a power of the government. The question is how broadly we should use the prohibition that it only be used for public good. When reading the decision, and Kennedy's concurring opinion, it actually seemed very clear. However, O'Connor's dissent brought up a counterpoint that I think is the real issue in the case:

To what extent can the government take private property and give it to another private entity for improvement? The question here isn't if - that was decided many, many years ago - but to what extent. I haven't fully made a decision, but I am leaning towards O'Connor's view that simply taking private property and giving it to another for a "better" use is not enough. Only if that property has fallen into a truly degenerate state (which was not the case here) should it even be a question.

Ihatevacations']How is that relevant to what I was saying

Well, what were you saying?

No, but like I stated, I'm giving them their chance. everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves.

after all, I'm sure the BOY SCOUTS also deserved what the ACLU did to them.

Well, they did. They wanted government money without following the rules necessary to get it. *shrug* It's like complaining that we shouldn't sue a company when they break the law.

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?
By the way, have you got an opinion on the matter?

No, but like I stated, I'm giving them their chance. everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves.

after all, I'm sure the BOY SCOUTS also deserved what the ACLU did to them.

This is getting off-topic, but this stuff drives me crazy.

Perfect examples of rumor, innuendo, and hysteria triumphing over facts and reason.

So, the ACLU is bad for doing something related to NAMBLA -- but you don't know what. :rolleyes:

As for the Boy Scouts, again it sounds like you don't actually know "what the ACLU did to them." But, for the record: yep -- they had it coming. In order to claim an exemption from state anti-discrimination laws, the Boy Scouts claimed in a few lawsuits that they were a private religious organization and that certain Christian moral values were a central part of the organization.

Prior to that, the Boy Scouts had long been considered a civic organization with an open membership. Thus, they enjoyed lots of preferential treatment from governments at all levels. Special deals for exclusive use of public land, direct payment of taxpayer funds, etc. As a private religious sect, they are no longer entitled to such preferential treatment. To the contrary, such treatment violates the First Amendment.

The Boy Scouts brought this on themselves by trying to have it both ways -- a public, civic organization for some purposes and a private, religious group for others.

To clear up misconceptions, a justice can be impeached.
Take a look at this,

“Whereas, Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States provides:

... The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


Whereas, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Whereas, Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office

Whereas, the American Bar Association Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Canon 1: A Judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Canon 2: A Judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities.”

Here is the source (http://www.petitiononline.com/impeach/petition.html). You liberals should agree with it, I think. ;)

Well, they did. They wanted government money without following the rules necessary to get it. *shrug* It's like complaining that we shouldn't sue a company when they break the law.wrong, they never asked for government money. The Boy Scouts don't ask the Government for anything.

wrong, they never asked for government money. The Boy Scouts don't ask the Government for anything.
Besides using public parkland. Paid for by the US government.

This is getting off-topic, but this stuff drives me crazy.

Perfect examples of rumor, innuendo, and hysteria triumphing over facts and reason.

So, the ACLU is bad for doing something related to NAMBLA -- but you don't know what. :rolleyes:

As for the Boy Scouts, again it sounds like you don't actually know "what the ACLU did to them." But, for the record: yep -- they had it coming. In order to claim an exemption from state anti-discrimination laws, the Boy Scouts claimed in a few lawsuits that they were a private religious organization and that certain Christian moral values were a central part of the organization.

Prior to that, the Boy Scouts had long been considered a civic organization with an open membership. Thus, they enjoyed lots of preferential treatment from governments at all levels. Special deals for exclusive use of public land, direct payment of taxpayer funds, etc. As a private religious sect, they are no longer entitled to such preferential treatment. To the contrary, such treatment violates the First Amendment.

The Boy Scouts brought this on themselves by trying to have it both ways -- a public, civic organization for some purposes and a private, religious group for others.Thanks for the Clarification. I never heard of them admitting to being a Christian Group. (and several troops in Hawaii are not baised in christan churches) I will stand down on the ACLU for now.

Here is the source (http://www.petitiononline.com/impeach/petition.html). You liberals should agree with it, I think. ;)
Your not educated enough to support a petition to impeach anyone. Emotion driven actions arn't worth shit. When you get an education, you can petition your ass off, until then sit down and shut up, well i doubt you will shut up, I'm sure you will whine about liberal corruption and how the yare destroying america while ignoring the rightwing doing whatevr the fuck they want with the blind support of the party line

Besides using public parkland. Paid for by the US government.
But they didn't ask for that. the Government officals granted them to use the parks. I'll admit the paperwork should have been filed like normal, but the offical allowed them to be used free of charge or so I heard. but I'm sure Cat-tribe has the info on that as well. ;)

To clear up misconceptions, a justice can be impeached.

You are correct.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Gerald Ford led an effort to impeach Justice Abe Fortas and Justice William O. Douglas.

In 1804, Justice Samuel Chase was impeached, but acquitted.

It has long been held, however, that Justices should not be impeached for their views or for particularly rulings -- but rather only for misconduct.

Ihatevacations]Your not educated enough to write a petition to impeach anyone. Emotion driven actions arn't worth shit. When you get an education, you can petition your ass off, until then sit down and shut up, well i doubt you will shut up, I'm sure you will whine about liberal corruption and how the yare destroying america while ignoring the rightwing doing whatevr the fuck they want with the blind support of the party line

Do you even read it? I didn’t write this petition. It was written long ago in response to the Supreme Court stopping the recounts in Florida. I don’t agree with it, but it raises valid points. Your elitism is really getting on my nerves. What right do you have to tell a fellow American (or anyone for that matter) that they can’t exercise their First Amendment rights, anyway? You, sir, have a terrible case of over-education, a bloated ego, and partisanship.

But they didn't ask for that. the Government officals granted them to use the parks. I'll admit the paperwork should have been filed like normal, but the offical allowed them to be used free of charge or so I heard. but I'm sure Cat-tribe has the info on that as well. ;)
That's some rather tourtured logic. The point is that a religious organization that by their own admission discriminates was allowed use of public land that is available for all the people. Not allowed.

Besides using public parkland. Paid for by the US government.

And government owned school buildings.

That's some rather tourtured logic. The point is that a religious organization that by their own admission discriminates was allowed use of public land that is available for all the people. Not allowed.No, not really, the Boys Scouts were penallized (the lawsuit was against them if memory serves) but the official who basically said Ok use the park with waived fees... well, I don't know what happened to him, but I don't think he had any action taken against him.

bascially it was reported in a way that they were punnished for recieving a gift from a government offical.

Again relying on memory.

any info cat-tribe?

It has long been held, however, that Justices should not be impeached for their views or for particularly rulings -- but rather only for misconduct.

That is true, but wouldn’t you call this misconduct? The supreme court is supposed to protect individual rights. Which they have a long history of in abortion, civil rights, free speech etc. They shouldn’t increase the power of the government, especially if there is no base in the constitution for it. If enough Americans call for impeachment, they will be impeached for this injustice. Last time I checked, committing an injustice was misconduct.

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?

Not only that. I think there's a murder case somewhere that the ACLU didn't file a brief on. And I believe they had absolutely nothing to say about Sex in the City making the move to network TV. Frankly, they don't care about anything other than promoting NAMBLA and abolishing the boyscouts. Or was it promomting NAMBLA as scoutmasters? ;)

Do you even read it? I didn’t write this petition. It was written long ago in response to the Supreme Court stopping the recounts in Florida. I don’t agree with it, but it raises valid points. Your elitism is really getting on my nerves. What right do you have to tell a fellow American (or anyone for that matter) that they can’t exercise their First Amendment rights, anyway? You, sir, have a terrible case of over-education, a bloated ego, and partisanship.
Partisanship? yeah, I get tired of the rightwing's incsessant bitching about liberals in topics that don't need their unintelligent drivel - this was a topic about the court's decision, rightwingers immediately started attacking liberals ignoring the decision itself for what it was - an independent decision of the court. Calling for the impeachment of judges based on misbehavior because they made decisions you don't agree with is the epitome of asinine, for either side. And stop writing so slow, I couldn't have left that unchanged for more than a couple minutes

Oh and CSW that was before I was Informed that the BOY SCOUTS admitted to being a Christian orgainization.

(after I got out tho)

so again, up to that point, to my knowledge, I always thought the label of Christian group was tacked on and not self assumed.

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.

Well, they could have ruled that the case is not so much one of eminent domain, but rather one of marketeering. If the property can be siezed just to spare some rich developers from having to haggle potentially higher prices, then it's not for the public good. The public would get more good out of higher house prices. They could have ruled that real estate sales are a matter of commerce and the state does not have eminent domain powers unless the property is going to remain in government hands.

Otherwise this is fascism in the strictest and truest sense of the word.

That is true, but wouldn’t you call this misconduct? The supreme court is supposed to protect individual rights. Which they have a long history of in abortion, civil rights, free speech etc. They shouldn’t increase the power of the government, especially if there is no base in the constitution for it. If enough Americans call for impeachment, they will be impeached for this injustice. Last time I checked, committing an injustice was misconduct.

The supreme court is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Yes, protecting the rights enshrined therein is part of it, but the ultimate role of the court is to uphold the law.

Eminent domain is part of the law - plain and simple. The courts have held for quite some time that transfer between two private entities was ok, so long as the public good was served. This case, depending on how you look at it, either follows precedent exactly, or ever so slightly expands it. This is a normal court proceeding.

Well, they could have ruled that the case is not so much one of eminent domain, but rather one of marketeering. If the property can be siezed just to spare some rich developers from having to haggle potentially higher prices, then it's not for the public good. The public would get more good out of higher house prices. They could have ruled that real estate sales are a matter of commerce and the state does not have eminent domain powers unless the property is going to remain in government hands.

Otherwise this is fascism in the strictest and truest sense of the word.

Such a ruling would go completely against precedent.

Not that the court cannot go agaisnt precedent, but it is highly unusual.

Ihatevacations]Partisanship? yeah, I get tired of the rightwing's incsessant bitching about liberals in topics that don't need their unintelligent drivel. Calling for the impeachment of judges based on misbehavior because they made decisions you don't agree with is the epitome of asinine, for either side. And stop writing so slow, I couldn't have left that unchanged for more than a couple minutes

Yeah, you just oppose anything a right-winger says and obviously don’t listen to their arguments at all.
They have made a ruling not based on the constitution or even precedence (which is goes toward defending individual rights not take them away). This is not fulfilling the duty of their office. That is misconduct. I disagree with plenty the Supreme Court does, but I don’t call for their impeachment, because they can find a basis in the constitution. This has no justification. And are you are insulting my typing speed? I can’t say that in my short time here I have never seen someone do that. You are a cretin.

Yeah, you just oppose anything a right-winger says and obviously don’t listen to their arguments at all.
They have made a ruling not based on the constitution or even precedence (which is goes toward defending individual rights not take them away). This is not fulfilling the duty of their office. That is misconduct. I disagree with plenty the Supreme Court does, but I don’t call for their impeachment, because they can find a basis in the constitution. This has no justification. And are you are insulting my typing speed? I can’t say that in my short time here I have never seen someone do that. You are a cretin.

You can't find a basis in the Constitution to call this misconduct either. They have presented an interpretation that disagrees with yours - and you therefore call it misconduct.

Have you even read the decision?

Yeah, you just oppose anything a right-winger says and obviously don’t listen to their arguments at all.
They have made a ruling not based on the constitution or even precedence (which is goes toward defending individual rights not take them away). This is not fulfilling the duty of their office. That is misconduct. I disagree with plenty the Supreme Court does, but I don’t call for their impeachment, because they can find a basis in the constitution. This has no justification. And are you are insulting my typing speed? I can’t say that in my short time here I have never seen someone do that. You are a cretin.

I'm pretty sure "You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone." is an argument not worth listening to. I don't care who started eminent domain, not relevant to the ruling. And yes, it was based on precedence, it was based on the in palce precedence of eminent domain, though it gave too much power to the idea of eminent domain in doing so. And NO, maknig a decision you do not agree with is NOT, FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, misconduct, its just a bad decision. You are a hypocrite

You are all idiots. Left wing, right wing, libertarian is all a guise to keep you separated from making your own decision. Our properties are now in the hands of developers and all you can do is argue conservative vs liberal bull crap all day. Complete clones you are all. We are american citizens with our own personal freedoms in trouble.

I get a paper in the mail about new development in the woods in my backyard. I guess there is just no space anywhere else. Now because of this new law, I might get a paper that says that I can't live in my house anymore. The space available has become my own property now.

Undelia, if you hit the 'Quote' at the lower right of the post, it will quote for you. if you need to manually quote, anyone with a [NS] needs to have the single quote marks around the name. so it would be [Quote='[NS]whatever']

Eminent domain is part of the law - plain and simple. The courts have held for quite some time that transfer between two private entities was ok, so long as the public good was served. This case, depending on how you look at it, either follows precedent exactly, or ever so slightly expands it. This is a normal court proceeding.

Right, but the constitution says “for public use”. This is not the same as the public interest or the public good, as you put it. If every taxpaying citizen can not utilize the project to replace the private property. Transferring it to private businesses makes this impossible. I’m sorry, I just can not support, in any faculty, what is essentially granting large fiefdoms to Wal-Mart and any other large corporation.

Anyway, I believe that Brown vs. Board and Roe vs. Wade overturned precedent, if I am not mistaken and those were both good, agreed?

Undelia, if you hit the 'Quote' at the lower right of the post, it will quote for you. if you need to manually quote, anyone with a [NS] needs to have the single quote marks around the name. so it would be [Quote='[NS]whatever']
I removed that part in under a minute

The question is how broadly we should use the prohibition that it only be used for public good.
Wrong, it is worded public USE, not public GOOD or public INTEREST. If the PUBLIC is not able to use the property but instead a PRIVATE entity is, then it does not fall under eminent domain.


Edit - Dammit Undelia.

Wrong, it is worded public USE, not public GOOD or public INTEREST. If the PUBLIC is not able to use the property but instead a PRIVATE entity is, then it does not fall under eminent domain.

Ok, fine, go against all court precedent.

In that case, we should tear up the entire railroad system - a good portion of it is unconstitutional. We should also tear up a big neighborhood in DC and take a bunch of homes from people in Hawii and give it back to the people they used to rent it from. Just to name a few.

That is one way to interpret it. It is not, however, the only way to interpret it and it is not the way the court has interpreted it in cases that provide precedent for this one.

Ihatevacations'][QUOTE=JuNii]Undelia, if you hit the 'Quote' at the lower right of the post, it will quote for you. if you need to manually quote, anyone with a [NS] needs to have the single quote marks around the name. so it would be
I removed that part in under a minute
;) I saw, and edited my post. "However, Knowledged spread..." ect. ect.

Besides, I didn't know about the single quote thing untill I quoted you and noticed it. :p

[QUOTE='[NS]Ihatevacations']
;) I saw, and edited my post. "However, Knowledged spread..." ect. ect.

Zing

Right, but the constitution says “for public use”. This is not the same as the public interest or the public good, as you put it.

That, like many things, is all a matter of interpretation.

Anyway, I believe that Brown vs. Board and Roe vs. Wade overturned precedent, if I am not mistaken and those were both good, agreed?

Certainly. I was not suggesting that precedent cannot be overturned, or that it fully and completely supports this case.

It is, however, highly unusual for precedent to be overturned. Thus, those screaming misconduct are full of it.

Ihatevacations']I'm pretty sure "You're a bunch of socialist scum who think that the land should belong to everyone." is an argument not worth listening to.

I never said that and you know it. You are painting right-wingers with a wide brush.

Wrong, it is worded public USE, not public GOOD or public INTEREST. If the PUBLIC is not able to use the property but instead a PRIVATE entity is, then it does not fall under eminent domain.

Thank you.

You are all idiots. Left wing, right wing, libertarian is all a guise to keep you separated from making your own decision. Our properties are now in the hands of developers and all you can do is argue conservative vs liberal bull crap all day. Complete clones you are all. We are american citizens with our own personal freedoms in trouble.

Bravo. You are correct. This is an issue where we need to drop our disagreements and unite against greedy politicians, and corporate moguls. This is coming from a hardcore capitalist, by the way. When guys like me have to say this stuff, you know things are bad.

By the way, thanks JuNii. :)

I never said that and you know it. You are painting right-wingers with a wide brush.
That is hardly the only quote in this thread, it was just the first

Ihatevacations']That is hardly the only quote in this thread, it was just the first

I have not once insulted the political left in this thread. This is an issue we need to unite on, before all our small towns are wholesale property of large corporations.

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 in my own backyard. I was BORN in New London! I must say that this upsets me to no end. Probably the only good news is that new businesses don't open easily in New London. About four families have nearly complete control of the city, and if they personally don't stand to profit, then things don't get done. The Fort Trumbul development project has been in debate for almost ten years now. At one time, those houses in question were actually padlocked to keep the residents out! :eek: One that I know of got arrested for breaking into his own house!

The whole situation has been nasty. WHat made things especially nasty was that the City had no concrete plans. They were tearing down these people homes to make room for...something. It's really upsetting. :(

This is in my own backyard. I was BORN in New London! I must say that this upsets me to no end. Probably the only good news is that new businesses don't open easily in New London. About four families have nearly complete control of the city, and if they personally don't stand to profit, then things don't get done. The Fort Trumbul development project has been in debate for almost ten years now. At one time, those houses in question were actually padlocked to keep the residents out! One that I know of got arrested for breaking into his own house!

The whole situation has been nasty. WHat made things especially nasty was that the City had no concrete plans. They were tearing down these people homes to make room for...something. It's really upsetting.

Unfortunately, this sad story will continue to be perpetuated throughout the US. Only it won’t take ten years, it will take mere months, unless the Supreme Court reverses this decision.

You are all idiots. Left wing, right wing, libertarian is all a guise to keep you separated from making your own decision.Um... I have been watching this Idiotic Left vs. Right argument for a while now. Please do not take the name of Libertarian in vain. We don't give a rat's arse about Left vs. Right. We care about Personal Rights. Period. We make our own decisions. Period. That's what being a Libertarian MEANS.

Our properties are now in the hands of developers and all you can do is argue conservative vs liberal bull crap all day. Complete clones you are all. We are american citizens with our own personal freedoms in trouble.Damn skippy. That's why I posted the LPUSA position email.

I get a paper in the mail about new development in the woods in my backyard. I guess there is just no space anywhere else. Now because of this new law, I might get a paper that says that I can't live in my house anymore. The space available has become my own property now.

I'm beginning to sympathize with EcoTerrorist tactics (tree spiking anyway). Just try to take my woods. You'll suffer long after I'm gone.

For anyone interest, you can read the court's opinion's: SCOTUS Opinion (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf)

Justice Thomas's brilliant dissenting opinion pretty much states everything wrong with this decision. For those that think the opinions are too long (58 pages total) he makes several strong points:

His primary point is that since land can be taken from an individual for economic development, then there is:

"Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

since, most certainly, it will be more "beneficial" to the neighborhood. To be put bluntly, anyone who can put your land to "better" use than you can effectively use eminent doman to sieze that land.

Another of his points is the wording which can imply great injustice. If land is taken from an individual for "public use" the government must compensate that individual for the loss, but since now the government can take land and give it to another individual, the government is not required to compensate the individual. Freightning. The exact quote was:

That interpretation, however, “would permit private prop-erty to be taken or appropriated for private use without any compensation whatever.”

A third point is that he does not agree with the notion that it should be up to "local or state governments" to determine what is considered to be "public benefit" or "public use" any more than local or state governments should decide exactly what constitutes "free speech".

Finally, he points out that the framers meant "public use" to mean precisely that, "public use" or "employ" and that the term was limited as such to put a check on what the government can take using eminent domain. Instead the term has been broadened to include "economic development", which enforces his main point.

Unfortunately, this sad story will continue to be perpetuated throughout the US. Only it won’t take ten years, it will take mere months, unless the Supreme Court reverses this decision.

That is an incredibly silly thing to say. With or without this decision, the use of eminent domain is insanely unpopular (as it should be). Even the decision (if you would actually read it) makes it clear that this does not open it up to any and all uses and that certain restrictions must still be met.

By all means, be angry about the decision - but don't try and demonize it into something it is not.

Another of his points is the wording which can imply great injustice. If land is taken from an individual for "public use" the government must compensate that individual for the loss, but since now the government can take land and give it to another individual, the government is not required to compensate the individual. Freightning. The exact quote was:

That interpretation, however, “would permit private prop-erty to be taken or appropriated for private use without any compensation whatever.”

Of course, this quote was used to describe exactly how the amendment has never, in its entire history, been interpreted. He was basically saying "Yeah, it could be interpreted this way, but it isn't, and never has been - and certainly never should be." This comment was completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

A third point is that he does not agree with the notion that it should be up to "local or state governments" to determine what is considered to be "public benefit" or "public use" any more than local or state governments should decide exactly what constitutes "free speech".

...which even most of the other justices would not argue, as it is completely against all precedent.

Finally, he points out that the framers meant "public use" to mean precisely that, "public use" or "employ" and that the term was limited as such to put a check on what the government can take using eminent domain. Instead the term has been broadened to include "economic development", which enforces his main point.

He doesn't point that out. He speculates, just as all discussion of "framer intent" is speculation.

This decision does seem to broaden the term very, very slightly from the interpretation on the books. It is not, however, the giant leap that everyone seems to be claiming. Is it a step too far? I would lean towards yes. However, it is certainly not what the people in this thread are making it out to be.

That is an incredibly silly thing to say.

No, you saying we should trash the railroad system and parts of D.C. was silly. We can’t change the past, however, we can try to create a better, more free future.

With or without this decision, the use of eminent domain is insanely unpopular (as it should be). Even the decision (if you would actually read it) makes it clear that this does not open it up to any and all uses and that certain restrictions must still be met.

Yeah and who gets to set those restrictions? Why, the same people who want to take the land away in the first place.

This decision does seem to broaden the term very, very slightly from the interpretation on the books. It is not, however, the giant leap that everyone seems to be claiming. Is it a step too far? I would lean towards yes. However, it is certainly not what the people in this thread are making it out to be.

The constitution does not need to be interpreted. It is a very clear document that spell out how government should be run. It is dangerous to assume it says something that it doesn’t. What will they “interpret” next?

Seriously, why are you supporting this, anyway?

The constitution does not need to be interpreted. It is a very clear document that spell out how government should be run. It is dangerous to assume it says something that it doesn’t. What will they “interpret” next?

Seriously, why are you supporting this, anyway?
Ah, no, it isn't really all that clear. It wasn't meant to be. That's why judges have the latitude that they do.

Ah, no, it isn't really all that clear. It wasn't meant to be. That's why judges have the latitude that they do.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

To me that is pretty simple, and I don’t see private use anywhere in there.

No, you saying we should trash the railroad system and parts of D.C. was silly. We can’t change the past, however, we can try to create a better, more free future.

I was simply pointint out that your ideas are completely at odds with over 100 years of jurisprudence. Things like that don't just change overnight. You would do much better to argue with this ruling on the basis that it extended the previous interpretations by allowing for this to occur even when the current use of the land was not, in and of itself, harmful to the community. Thus, you could argue that the precedent didn't really apply.

If you want to fight this, you'll have to fight it on legal terms, not idealistic ones.

Yeah and who gets to set those restrictions? Why, the same people who want to take the land away in the first place.

Incorrect, the courts would be the ones who ultimately set the yes or no on these things. They do defer to the legislators quite a bit, but not completely. And even the main opinion clearly stated that this decision should not be seen as opening the door to widespread use of eminent domain - and that the decision would not apply to all use of it.

The constitution does not need to be interpreted. It is a very clear document that spell out how government should be run. It is dangerous to assume it says something that it doesn’t. What will they “interpret” next?

Bullshit. The Constitution does have to be interpreted. Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to drive a car? Where does it say you have the right to choose an abortion, if you so wish? Where does it say you have the right to marry? Where does it say you can't be fired for your ethnicity?

NONE of these things are stated in the Constitution. However, interpretation has led us to feel that these rights do fall under its protections.

Seriously, why are you supporting this, anyway?

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that your panic is completely unfounded and counter-productive. Like I have already said, I lean towards O'Connor's dissent.

Of course, this quote was used to describe exactly how the amendment has never, in its entire history, been interpreted. He was basically saying "Yeah, it could be interpreted this way, but it isn't, and never has been - and certainly never should be." This comment was completely irrelevant to the case at hand.



...which even most of the other justices would not argue, as it is completely against all precedent.



He doesn't point that out. He speculates, just as all discussion of "framer intent" is speculation.

This decision does seem to broaden the term very, very slightly from the interpretation on the books. It is not, however, the giant leap that everyone seems to be claiming. Is it a step too far? I would lean towards yes. However, it is certainly not what the people in this thread are making it out to be.


I read the decision and it seems to me that as long as you submit a development plan, a taking can be justified. It's a rather large expansion.

Also, the court emphasizes that there is no need for judicial review of the state findings in respect of the existing condition of the property and the efficacy and benefits of the proposed development plan.

So basically a local municipality can do what it wants with your property. And you won't ever get adequate compensation for it.

It's like something from the third world.

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that your panic is completely unfounded and counter-productive. Like I have already said, I lean towards O'Connor's dissent.

We’ll see. Any sane politician has the potential to go against this thing, because an absolutely crushing majority oppose this. This could create quite a backlash against the Supreme Court that may effectively cripple the legislative branch for years to some. Oh, and just wait for the first time the government has to kill somebody, because they refuse to give into this tyranny. I f the Supreme Court wished to continue to exercise the power that it does it should reverse this decision, immediately. If the people do not react strongly, than we are truly lost as a nation. Legality is all well and good, but practically thinking through your actions is also good. Plus, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, not precedent.

t's like something from the third world.

Thanks for cutting through the lies. :D

Ah dude...This, this really sucks! My county is so screwed! Every big business has been moving into Stafford lately, getting nice locations along Route 1 and 610, but there's no more room for anymore building along those roads...But with this crap, I'm just waiting for Ikea or something to come tearing in to a neigborhood along 610, and ah shit, my house is along Route 1! Not only that though, our local government is so friggin corrupt, been selling out to big businesses for years now. Hell, last year, they just butchered hundreds of acres of forest in between three neigborhoods to make room for a new shopping center that includes Giant, Shoppers, Lowes, Target, Home Depot, Borders, etc. Damn, this really blows...

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

To me that is pretty simple, and I don’t see private use anywhere in there.

Actually, the curious thing is how you think that obviously bans taking private property for private use.

Taking the simplistic literal view that some advocate, it only says private property can't be taken for public use without just compensation.

It doesn't literally say anything about taking private property for private use.

Now, the Supreme Court has long recognized that eminent domain is limited to public use.

The whole point of contention in the recent case was what constitutes public use.

Ah, no, it isn't really all that clear. It wasn't meant to be. That's why judges have the latitude that they do.
Do you honestly look at what you type before you hit the submit reply button? I find it highly unlikely that the framers did not intend to make for the easiest reading of the constitution one could get. You're acting as if they made it as complicated as possible so as to give power over to a ruling body that could interpret their meaning, which is absurd to say the least. SCOTUS' job is not to intepret the constitution itself, contrary to what some would have you believe. It is to decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Period. However, a certain 5 justices have taken it upon themselves to engineer the exact opposite effect with this ruling, that is to interpret the constitution so that it complies with the ordinance.

So basically a local municipality can do what it wants with your property. And you won't ever get adequate compensation for it.

It's like something from the third world.
Unless, of course, you're wealthy enough to be able to convince the municipality to do what it wishes elsewhere, in which case it's nothing like the third world.

Look, I don't like the decision either, but color me a bit skeptical when you've got Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor arguing that a decision is going to hurt the little guy. Their previous jurisprudence doesn't lead one to believe that they're ever on the lookout for the little guy--there's something else at play, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had an agenda to overturn Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, which seems to be the binding precedent in this case, with this one.

Funny thing about that case--O'Connor voted in favor of the taking in that one, and said this:"The Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public. It is not essential that the entire community, nor even any considerable portion, directly enjoy or participate in any improvement in order for it to constitute a public use." and while I don't know the entire story in Kelo, it sounds like it's just an extension of Hawaii Housing Authority. Maybe she's changed her mind, or maybe she just thinks this went too far--I have no way of knowing--but it seems to me that there's more going on here than is readily apparent.

I read the decision and it seems to me that as long as you submit a development plan, a taking can be justified. It's a rather large expansion.

Also, the court emphasizes that there is no need for judicial review of the state findings in respect of the existing condition of the property and the efficacy and benefits of the proposed development plan.

So basically a local municipality can do what it wants with your property. And you won't ever get adequate compensation for it.

It's like something from the third world.


"The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

If you read the opinion you know (a) it was not a significant depature from existing precedent and (b) the Court did not make the sweeping generalizations that you do.

BTW, I find it hilarious that so many on here are the same ones that scream "states' rights, states' rights" on most other issues. States' rights apparently only applies when you think the state is right.

...which even most of the other justices would not argue, as it is completely against all precedent.

Actually, Justice Steven's presentation of the Court's opinion DOES in fact argue this. He clearly states that local/state governments should determine what "economic development" and "public use" mean.

Of course, this quote was used to describe exactly how the amendment has never, in its entire history, been interpreted. He was basically saying "Yeah, it could be interpreted this way, but it isn't, and never has been - and certainly never should be." This comment was completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

Your point is? He is stating the danger of how our government (state/city/federal whatever) can interpret the law. Now, it probably never will be interpreted like that but he still comments on the danger.

He doesn't point that out. He speculates, just as all discussion of "framer intent" is speculation.

I'm sorry for my inaccurate choice of words... :rolleyes: He interprets it, and IMHO very accurately.

This decision does seem to broaden the term very, very slightly from the interpretation on the books.

How is the term broadened slightly when theoretically, any private property that can be replaced by something that will "improve" can now be taken. He also clearly explains the ease of exploitation of this new ruling by the economically and politically powerfull especially against the poorer sections of society.

If you read the opinion you know (a) it was not a significant depature from existing precedent and (b) the Court did not make the sweeping generalizations that you do.

And if you read the dissenting opinion it was a significant departure and it is commented that such abuses can happen.

Do you honestly look at what you type before you hit the submit reply button? I find it highly unlikely that the framers did not intend to make for the easiest reading of the constitution one could get. You're acting as if they made it as complicated as possible so as to give power over to a ruling body that could interpret their meaning, which is absurd to say the least. SCOTUS' job is not to intepret the constitution itself, contrary to what some would have you believe. It is to decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Period. However, a certain 5 justices have taken it upon themselves to engineer the exact opposite effect with this ruling, that is to interpret the constitution so that it complies with the ordinance.
Unlikely as you may find it, it is nonetheless the case that the Constitution requires interpretation. It's filled with undefined--and at times, undefinable--terms, with abstract notions, if you will, that are fluid and change over time. Here's a simple example of why originalism doesn't work--commerce as it was understood in 1789 and commerce today are wildly different notions. Without the court's ability to interpret the Constitution as a living document, we'd be dealing with a 21st century economy using 18th century rules. The world changes, Ravenshrike--just be glad that the Constitution is flexible enough to change with it.

Do you honestly look at what you type before you hit the submit reply button? I find it highly unlikely that the framers did not intend to make for the easiest reading of the constitution one could get. You're acting as if they made it as complicated as possible so as to give power over to a ruling body that could interpret their meaning, which is absurd to say the least. SCOTUS' job is not to intepret the constitution itself, contrary to what some would have you believe. It is to decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Period. However, a certain 5 justices have taken it upon themselves to engineer the exact opposite effect with this ruling, that is to interpret the constitution so that it complies with the ordinance.

Utterly ridiculous.

What is absurd is that you are arguing our constitutional jurisprudence has been wrong since at least 1803. Your view of the Supreme Court is simply wrong -- and has been since the early days of the Republic.
Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html ), 5 US 137 (1803):

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

The Constitution was written with many vague phrases -- particularly in the Bill of Rights. Some of this was due to compromise. Some of it was to deliberately leave matters open to application.

And the Supreme Court was designated to interpret and enforce the Constitution and laws of the land.

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.

Negative, RC. You have to understand how "emminent domain" (the power of the government to seize real estate against the will of the owner) works. This usually arises in the context of "airport expansion," but very often works to the benefit of well-connected private sector business interests. This government authority allows the taking of property which may have been in the hands of a family for several generations, or that of a business which invested heavily to secure a great "location location location." To add salt to the wound, what constitutes "just compensation" for the taking of real estate is determined by the government. Understand that "just compensation" does NOT mean "market value," and you will appreciate why emminent domain is such a horrid concept.

The concept of emminent domain, when combined with "sovereign immunity" (the inability to sue the government without its permission) makes the elected government less "of the people" and more a ruling sovereign. This is because emminent domain and sovereign immunity are irrefutable legal principles----YOU CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGE THEM IN COURT. These concepts are two of the most antiquated and useless ideas in the history of jurisprudence.

Unlikely as you may find it, it is nonetheless the case that the Constitution requires interpretation. It's filled with undefined--and at times, undefinable--terms, with abstract notions, if you will, that are fluid and change over time. Here's a simple example of why originalism doesn't work--commerce as it was understood in 1789 and commerce today are wildly different notions. Without the court's ability to interpret the Constitution as a living document, we'd be dealing with a 21st century economy using 18th century rules. The world changes, Ravenshrike--just be glad that the Constitution is flexible enough to change with it.

Care to enlighten as to where the Constitution sets up a commercial system?

BTW, I find it hilarious that so many on here are the same ones that scream "states' rights, states' rights" on most other issues. States' rights apparently only applies when you think the state is right.

I find it hilarious that so many on here are the same ones that scream "civil rights, civil rights" on most other issues. Civil rights apparently don’t apply when the Holy Grand Can Do No Wrong Supreme Court decides they don’t matter.

BTW, I find it hilarious that so many on here are the same ones that scream "states' rights, states' rights" on most other issues. States' rights apparently only applies when you think the state is right.

Um, dude. Lay states' rights aside. "....shall [not] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process." A developer creating a plan and the state (or municipality) saying 'ok' is not due process, and that is what this decision allows.

and enforce the Constitution and laws of the land.

Huh, all this time I thought that job belonged to the Executive branch.

I find it hilarious that so many on here are the same ones that scream "civil rights, civil rights" on most other issues. Civil rights apparently don’t apply when the Holy Grand Can Do No Wrong Supreme Court decides they don’t matter.

LOL

Who said the Supreme Court can do no wrong?

I'm not sure I agree with majority in this case. I posted stuff about the abuse of eminent domain for the development months ago.

But unlike those who have gotten all hysterical I recognize the case is not a sign of armageddon. The particular facts of this case and the reasoning of the majority opinion are rather narrow and the horror stories being floated around are just silly.

But again, why do so many that think civil rights issues should normally be left to the states think this one should have been decided by the Supreme Court?

My position is quite consistent. Care to explain yours?

Huh, all this time I thought that job belonged to the Executive branch.

nice job of chopping my sentence.

I'm sorry if my wording contradicted a 6th grade chart of the three branches of government.

Pray tell, what do you think the judiciary branch does?

And do you actually have a problem with Marbury v. Madison or are you just trying to be a smart-ass?

EDIT: As you say the Constitution is so clear it need not be interpreted, where does it say the Executive branch enforces the laws?

Um, dude. Lay states' rights aside. "....shall [not] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process." A developer creating a plan and the state (or municipality) saying 'ok' is not due process, and that is what this decision allows.

Um, dude, I'm quite familiar with the 5th Amendment. If you are talking about limiting states, however, the more relevant quote is from the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

By itself, the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Nor are you referring to the relevant part of the 5th Amendment.

But you are begging the question.

And, there is a bit more subtlety to the decision than that.

Care to enlighten as to where the Constitution sets up a commercial system?
Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have the power.... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Try reading the Constitution sometime--the whole thing. You might find it enlightening.

Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have the power.... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

How is Congress regulating trade incompatible with today?

But again, why do so many that think civil rights issues should normally be left to the states think this one should have been decided by the Supreme Court?


Um, dude, I'm quite familiar with the 5th Amendment. If you are talking about limiting states, however, the more relevant quote is from the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Did you just make my point for me? Considering this new ruling keeps those who are having their property being handed over to corporations from appealing the action.

EDIT: As you say the Constitution is so clear it need not be interpreted, where does it say the Executive branch enforces the laws?

Article II section 1- "The executive power shall be vested in a presidant of the United States."

Look up the definition of the word executive.

Pray tell, what do you think the judiciary branch does?

It hears cases and makes rulings that usually involve challenges to the constitutionality of a law. They usually make good decisions, enhancing the freedoms of the individual, but here they seem to have made the government more powerful, thus decreasing individual freedoms. They also hear certain cases listed in the first section of article three.

And do you actually have a problem with Marbury v. Madison or are you just trying to be a smart-ass?

Where so you get that I have a problem with it? I just want the right to own property without the government being able to under-pay me for it at any time and give it to a corporation.

How is Congress regulating trade incompatible with today?
I was talking about the word "commerce" in terms of those who would say that the Constitution is not a fluid document that changes over time, textual originalists, they're called. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what it meant in 1789, when it was ratified. Problem is, language is fluid, and commerce doesn't mean today what it meant in 1789--it's much more far-ranging now, but textual originalists should argue--even though they don't--that we ought to be dealing with the 1789 definition when deciding Commerce clause cases. Up to speed now?

I was talking about the word "commerce" in terms of those who would say that the Constitution is not a fluid document that changes over time, textual originalists, they're called. They argue that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean what it meant in 1789, when it was ratified. Problem is, language is fluid, and commerce doesn't mean today what it meant in 1789--it's much more far-ranging now, but textual originalists should argue--even though they don't--that we ought to be dealing with the 1789 definition when deciding Commerce clause cases. Up to speed now?

Still not following. If congress passes laws to redefine what commerce is that’s fine, but just assuming it changes has always struck me as unusual.

Still not following. If congress passes laws to redefine what commerce is that’s fine, but just assuming it changes has always struck me as unusual.Then take a course in linguistics and study how language evolves over time, and take a course in economic history and learn how commerce has evolved over the last two hundred twenty years or so.

Then take a course in linguistics and study how language evolves over time, and take a course in economic history and learn how commerce has evolved over the last two hundred twenty years or so.

I always thought that the Constitution was a bit too important for us to allow it to be effected by changes in vocabulary over time.

...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...
Yeah... Okay, so the ACLU supports the rights of neo-nazis and the kkk because they have a right wing agenda? This is a BS argument. The real problem with the ACLU is that they focus almost entirely on freedom of speech issues. Now the Southern Poverty Law Center should be all over this abusive use of imminent domain...

I always thought that the Constitution was a bit too important for us to allow it to be effected by changes in vocabulary over time.
You might as well try to sweep back the tide as stop changes in language. It is inevitable that language changes, just as society changes, just as technology changes. A stagnant society dies, no matter how great an empire it can lay claim to, and our society is no exception. Or do you really think that the Constitution can mean today precisely what it meant over two hundred twenty years ago, even though we live in a world the writers could never have envisioned?

The basic premises of the Constitution remain valid, but its brilliance as a document is in its flexibility of language, that it can be interpreted differently depending on the needs of society at the time.

You might as well try to sweep back the tide as stop changes in language. It is inevitable that language changes, just as society changes, just as technology changes. A stagnant society dies, no matter how great an empire it can lay claim to, and our society is no exception. Or do you really think that the Constitution can mean today precisely what it meant over two hundred twenty years ago, even though we live in a world the writers could never have envisioned?

Yeah I guess that’s right. That still doesn’t explain how “public use” becomes “the interests of corrupt politicians and corporate moguls,” though.

I think its great that the government is doing this. It gets people accustomed to the idea that the government has the power to take away your property and at the same time it makes people angry and resentful of big business and capitalism as a whole. This is a big step for communism.

I think its great that the government is doing this. It gets people accustomed to the idea that the government has the power to take away your property and at the same time it makes people angry and resentful of big business and capitalism as a whole. This is a big step for communism.

That was either brilliant or scary.

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?

Does it matter? I mean we still get to keep our guns right? ;)

All I can say is that maybe it is time for a revolution.
But, I don't know, being the wonderfully nice person that I am, I suppose there might still be time for peaceful reform.

All I can say is that maybe it is time for a revolution.
But, I don't know, being the wonderfully nice person that I am, I suppose there might still be time for peaceful reform.

I say its time to redo the entire Supreme Court. Time to impeach judges me thinks. We have the grounds now. The Supreme Court Clearly violated the 4th and 5th Amendments.

This to me is an impeachable offense and it needs to be done.

I say its time to redo the entire Supreme Court. Time to impeach judges me thinks. We have the grounds now. The Supreme Court Clearly violated the 4th and 5th Amendments.

This to me is an impeachable offense and it needs to be done.
I swear, I am surrounded by idiots. It is their job to interpret the Constituion, if they interpret it how you disagree with it is not gross misconduc,t thus not impeachable, they are just doing their jobs in a manner you don't like

Ihatevacations']I swear, I am surrounded by idiots. It is their job to interpret the Constituion, if they interpret it how you disagree with it is not gross misconduc,t thus not impeachable, they are just doing their jobs in a manner you don't like

How the HELL is this NOT a violation of the US Constitution? I hate to see what school you went to but THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!

It is time for these black robed people to lose their rights to be called a supreme court justice. They crossed the line here. I shall not give up my property so a shopping mall can be built. If I owned a gun, I'd shoot the first person that tries to toss me off my land.

Ihatevacations']I swear, I am surrounded by idiots. It is their job to interpret the Constituion, if they interpret it how you disagree with it is not gross misconduc,t thus not impeachable, they are just doing their jobs in a manner you don't like

"...a government of the people, by the people, for the people."

But I guess you think it should be ammended to: "A government of rich white men, by rich white men, for rich white men"?

How the HELL is this NOT a violation of the US Constitution? I hate to see what school you went to but THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!
You entirely miss my point, go rant somewhere else


"...a government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Where is that in teh constitution

Ihatevacations']You entirely miss my point, go rant somewhere else

*yawns*

The US Congress is in an uproar over this decision. I'm sure that the House Judiciary Committee is looking into it. Don't be surprised if they begin impeachment proceedings.

Where is that in teh constitution

Ever hear of this thing called the Gettysburg Address?

If I owned a gun, I'd shoot the first person that tries to toss me off my land.

And you'd be arrested and thrown in prison.

You all act as though this hasn't been going on for years and years.

And you'd be arrested and thrown in prison.

I have a right to defend my land. I shall use that right.

You all act as though this hasn't been going on for years and years.

And people have taken up arms for years and years to defend their land.

I have a right to defend my land. I shall use that right.


Where exactly in our code of law is that "right"? You do NOT have the right to shoot people who are lawfully entering your land. If you do not want your land claimed for eminent domain, then fight it in your local government while it's still being debated. Don't open fire on people.

How did they twist the meaning of public use to mean any property the government takes, regardless of whether or not it goes to a public project?
This is ridiculous! What happens when a developer wants to put in a chemical plant or something equally repulsive in the middle of a residential neighborhood? The people have to just move?

I hope they put a waste treatment plant right next to the Supreme Court so that they can smell the bullshit they heaped on the citizens of the US.

Where exactly in our code of law is that "right"? You do NOT have the right to shoot people who are lawfully entering your land. If you do not want your land claimed for eminent domain, then fight it in your local government while it's still being debated. Don't open fire on people.
As a matter of fact, a state legislature can pass a law prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development. Eight US states presently have such laws on the books.

Make vote, not war! :)

Ever hear of this thing called the Gettysburg Address?
I wasn't aware of it being in the Constitution

nor was I aware it had any legal standing

Wait.

I'm agreeing with Corneliu? God. I've found myself agreeing with so many people whose posts usually make me grit my teeth because I disagree with them so much.

What is this world coming to? :(

Where exactly in our code of law is that "right"? You do NOT have the right to shoot people who are lawfully entering your land.

Since they technically don't own the land until I vacate it, it is considered tresspassing and tresspassers will be shot.

If you do not want your land claimed for eminent domain, then fight it in your local government while it's still being debated. Don't open fire on people.

That is the last resort. I could also tie it up in court while I defend my land.

Since they technically don't own the land until I vacate it, it is considered tresspassing and tresspassers will be shot.

That is the last resort. I could also tie it up in court while I defend my land.

If they keep on this path, it will be time for more than that. More like a second Revolution.

If they keep on this path, it will be time for more than that. More like a second Revolution.

I'm all for that!

If they keep on this path, it will be time for more than that. More like a second Revolution.

And only aimed at the SCOTUS! Congress is in an uproar over this. I advise every American here to write, call, and email your congressmen.

I'm planning on doing that myself. It is time for the Congress to start overseeing the Judicial Branch of Government and get these gross violations of the Constitution to end.

I'm all for that!

Instead of soliders being quartered, it's developers stealing houses.

I'm writing my Congressman. The SCOTUS has gone too far.

If this doesn't work...time to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights

Funny thing about that case--O'Connor voted in favor of the taking in that one, and said this: and while I don't know the entire story in Kelo, it sounds like it's just an extension of Hawaii Housing Authority. Maybe she's changed her mind, or maybe she just thinks this went too far--I have no way of knowing--but it seems to me that there's more going on here than is readily apparent.

Actually, you do have a way of knowing - read her dissent. It is pretty clear that she thinks the problem in this case was that there was no reason to state that the current use of the property was, in and of itself, harmful to the community.

In the DC case and in the Hawii case, the original use of the property was harmful to the community, thus it was permissable for the government to step in and change the use. In this case, the government thought it could "better" the property, but had no reason to state that the current use is harmful.

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:

I would only shoot the construction workers if they were trying to level the house with me or someone else inside of it (and would never leave the house without an armed person in it if I knew that the government was trying to steal my house).

Since they technically don't own the land until I vacate it, it is considered tresspassing and tresspassers will be shot.

That'll hold up in court :rolleyes:


I'm planning on doing that myself. It is time for the Congress to start overseeing the Judicial Branch of Government and get these gross violations of the Constitution to end
So anything yo udisagree with is gross violation? And oh yeah, the legislature has ALWAYS tried to benefit the american people and have NEVER done anything for their own personal good or anything that would infringe on the rights of the american people. Hell, why don't we just let cuba oversee the judicial branch.

Ihatevacations']So anything yo udisagree with is gross violation? And oh yeah, the legislature has ALWAYS tried to benefit the american people and have NEVER done anything for their own personal good or anything that would infringe on the rights of the american people. Hell, why don't we just let cuba oversee the judicial branch.

But, throwing people out of their homes just so private developers can build shit is violating their rights.

Ihatevacations']
So anything yo udisagree with is gross violation? And oh yeah, the legislature has ALWAYS tried to benefit the american people and have NEVER done anything for their own personal good or anything that would infringe on the rights of the american people. Hell, why don't we just let cuba oversee the judicial branch.

This is a gross violation. These projects are privately owned and are not public use, so I can't see how the 5th Amendment can be construed to justify this.

The legislature at least has some responsibility. They are elected to terms (there are lifer senators, I will admit) unlike SCOTUS judges, who are appointed to a lifelong position by a president and all they have to do is be confirmed.

Ihatevacations']That'll hold up in court :rolleyes:

It was the last time I checked the law books. If you perceive someone as a threat to your property, you have the right to defend it. :rolleyes:

So anything yo udisagree with is gross violation?

Nope. But this is most definitely a Violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution. Since it is a violation of the Constitution, these judges deserved to be impeached if they don't resign first.

And oh yeah, the legislature has ALWAYS tried to benefit the american people and have NEVER done anything for their own personal good or anything that would infringe on the rights of the american people. Hell, why don't we just let cuba oversee the judicial branch.

I wouldn't trust Cuba to do it. However, Congress has the authority to check the Judicial Branch. Its that whole checks and balance thing that you seem to be forgetting. The Justices crossed the line and it is up to the Congress to push them back to the proper side of the line.

LOL

Who said the Supreme Court can do no wrong?

I'm not sure I agree with majority in this case. I posted stuff about the abuse of eminent domain for the development months ago.

But unlike those who have gotten all hysterical I recognize the case is not a sign of armageddon. The particular facts of this case and the reasoning of the majority opinion are rather narrow and the horror stories being floated around are just silly.

Exactly!

Thanks, Cat.

Yeah I guess that’s right. That still doesn’t explain how “public use” becomes “the interests of corrupt politicians and corporate moguls,” though.

It doesn't. In fact, if you bothered to read the decision, you would see that it specifically states that public use cannot and will not mean that.

This is a gross violation. These projects are privately owned and are not public use, so I can't see how the 5th Amendment can be construed to justify this.

The legislature at least has some responsibility. They are elected to terms (there are lifer senators, I will admit) unlike SCOTUS judges, who are appointed to a lifelong position by a president and all they have to do is be confirmed.
I am not solely thinking of this decision like all the nutcases for the past two days. I realize there the Supreme Court has had alot more cases than just this one. And what is your point? The legislature doesn't give two shits about the American public, the American public (republicans) unintelligently vote party line and legislature does whatever the fuck it wants. I have almost never seen the legislature do ANYTHING for the good of the american public or to protect their rights. It is ALL political bullshit.

However, Congress has the authority to check the Judicial Branch. Its that whole checks and balance thing that you seem to be forgetting. The Justices crossed the line and it is up to the Congress to push them back to the proper side of the line.
Checks and balances: it is the judicial's job to keep the politically motivated bastards in the legislature in check.

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

Lets be fair, he's half armed . . .

Ihatevacations']I am not solely thinking of this decision like all the nutcases for the past two days. I realize there the Supreme Court has had alot more cases than just this one. And what is your point? The legislature doesn't give two shits about the American public, the American public (republicans) unintelligently vote party line and legislature does whatever the fuck it wants. I have almost never seen the legislature do ANYTHING for the good of the american public or to protect their rights. It is ALL political bullshit.

But people get finiky when their rights get trampled on. This tramples on those rights. The people of this country aren't happy that their right to their own property is being trampled on. When the People aren't happy, Congressmen/women jump to make them happy. Well... if they want to keep their jobs that is! :D

Ihatevacations']the American public (republicans) unintelligently vote party line

A lot of democrats do that, too.

Ihatevacations']Checks and balances: it is the judicial's job to keep the politically motivated bastards in the legislature in check.

And who is supposed to check the Judicial Branch? The US Congress and the President of the United States. :rolleyes:

Go back to school and learn something about government.

It was the last time I checked the law books. If you perceive someone as a threat to your property, you have the right to defend it. :rolleyes:

It's no longer your land if it is seized by eminent domain.

It's no longer your land if it is seized by eminent domain.

Then I'll tie it up in court and still use my gun to defend my land.

Go back to school and learn something about government.

Really Corneliu, given recent events of your own on this forum, (that whole enlisting thing) do you really need to be so fucking condescending?

Really Corneliu, given recent events of your own on this forum, (that whole enlisting thing) do you really need to be so fucking condescending?

LOL! You've been condescending too so you don't have room to talk :D

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

If you read the opinion you know (a) it was not a significant depature from existing precedent and (b) the Court did not make the sweeping generalizations that you do.

BTW, I find it hilarious that so many on here are the same ones that scream "states' rights, states' rights" on most other issues. States' rights apparently only applies when you think the state is right.

It works like this Fedral Rights < State's Rights < Human Rights

It doesn't. In fact, if you bothered to read the decision, you would see that it specifically states that public use cannot and will not mean that.

But when you read the dissent, you will find that O'connor and the others are worried about the same thing. She noted

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.


I think that position is just common sense.

What's worse is that the eager sellers will be hurt by this ruling, too. The developers won't have any incentive to offer fair compensation and will undoubtedly lowball the offer so that the government can condemn the property.

I think the sky IS falling.

LOL! You've been condescending too so you don't have room to talk :D
So its ok for you to be a hypocrite?

LOL! You've been condescending too so you don't have room to talk :D

Unlike you, I haven't been caught lying, or if you wish, talking like I know everything about a subject and get caught not knowing too much about it all, as was the case with you. Bit of a difference there lad.

But when you read the dissent, you will find that O'connor and the others are worried about the same thing. She noted

Oh, I lean toward agreeing with O'Connor. However, that doesn't change the fact that the intent of the decision is not to allow any and all takings, as many people seem to suggest. O'Connor's worry is not that the court will allow any and all takings, but that no clear method of determining which are and are not proper was stipulated.

What's worse is that the eager sellers will be hurt by this ruling, too. The developers won't have any incentive to offer fair compensation and will undoubtedly lowball the offer so that the government can condemn the property.

You guys really are full of conspiracy theories today, aren't you? First of all, the eminent domain option (even by the decision just passed) is meant to be a rarely used option - and is incredibly unpopular. Few politicians will use it unless they feel it absolutely necessary - it simply isn't good politics. Second of all, there is nothing in this decision that lowers the bar for fair compensation. Fair compensation must be provided in all uses of eminent domain. If the person does not feel that the compensation offered is fair, they have legal options to change it.

I think the sky IS falling.

Because a single cloud moved a bit the the right.

Panic is not warranted here, nor is it going to help anything.

It works like this Fedral Rights < State's Rights < Human Rights
You've got it backwards.

It works like this:

State Privileges < Federal Privileges < Human Rights.

State privileges are very limited, overruled when they conflict with federal law, and are subject to a federal document (The Constitution). Human rights in theory overrule them all.

You've got it backwards.

It works like this:

State Privileges < Federal Privileges < Human Rights.

State privileges are very limited, overruled when they conflict with federal law, and are subject to a federal document (The Constitution). Human rights in theory overrule them all.

Thank you, I was about to say the same. (Although, to me it would be provincial rights instead of state rights, but it's a similar issue.)

Ihatevacations']So its ok for you to be a hypocrite?

eh?

I'm sorry? Are you referring to me? Far be it from me that I actually know what the Constitution states. Far be it from me to know that SCOTUS has violated the 4th and 5th Amendments of said Constitution. Far be it from me to call them on it and to write my congressmen to have them tossed out of power if they don't resign.

How am I being a hypocrit?

Fair compensation must be provided in all uses of eminent domain. If the person does not feel that the compensation offered is fair, they have legal options to change it.You haven't read into many eminent domain cases, have you? Fair compensation is != to market price, especially after the local authorities condemn your property. Given the amount of work put into it my parents' house in the current market could garner somewhere between 350-400 thousand dollars. Condemn the property and market price drops down to about 100-125k. Given that what people get as just compensation tends to be a bit below the market value that means that the property would fetch only a bit more than a 1/4 of it's actual value. Fair compensation my ass.

Unlike you, I haven't been caught lying, or if you wish, talking like I know everything about a subject and get caught not knowing too much about it all, as was the case with you. Bit of a difference there lad.

:rolleyes:

Considering that info that I had was 20 years out of date....

Anyway, i'm not going to go back to that arguement again. Anyway, the Supreme Court needs to get a clue that they have just violated the Constitution with this ruling. I doubt they will so its time for a letter writing campaign to get these Black Robed people off the bench.

:rolleyes:

Considering that info that I had was 20 years out of date....



Yes, your information, not mine. So I'd take anything you say "I know for a fact" with a grain of salt. In fact, make that the whole box of salt.

Anyway, the Supreme Court needs to get a clue that they have just violated the Constitution with this ruling. I doubt they will so its time for a letter writing campaign to get these Black Robed people off the bench.
4 of them do, 5 do not.

Yes, your information, not mine. So I'd take anything you say "I know for a fact" with a grain of salt. In fact, make that the whole box of salt.

And I did admit that you were right too. Just like I'm right here. Hell, I'm not the only one that is saying that. Dems and Republicans alike are outraged over this ruling.

Yes, your information, not mine. So I'd take anything you say "I know for a fact" with a grain of salt. In fact, make that the whole box of salt.
Considering that the wording of the constitution does not change except with amendments, of which there hasn't been one concerning either the 4th or 5th amendment I would assume his info on the subject has stayed relatively stable.

4 of them do, 5 do not.

Good point. But it is still an abominition that SCOTUS violated the Constitution. Those responsible need to be ousted from the bench and hanged.

eh?

I'm sorry? Are you referring to me? Far be it from me that I actually know what the Constitution states. Far be it from me to know that SCOTUS has violated the 4th and 5th Amendments of said Constitution. Far be it from me to call them on it and to write my congressmen to have them tossed out of power if they don't resign.

How am I being a hypocrit?
Well besides the fact there are a couple hundred years of case law between the creation of the Constitution and now, it is teh Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, not yours.

You haven't read into many eminent domain cases, have you? Fair compensation is != to market price, especially after the local authorities condemn your property. Given the amount of work put into it my parents' house in the current market could garner somewhere between 350-400 thousand dollars. Condemn the property and market price drops down to about 100-125k. Given that what people get as just compensation tends to be a bit below the market value that means that the property would fetch only a bit more than a 1/4 of it's actual value. Fair compensation my ass.

Like I said, if you don't feel that it is fair compensation, then it can be challenged.

Meanwhile, fair compensation is generally determined by the market price. Of course, as you pointed out, if the area is blighted or something like that - the price is lower than the person might like. Of course, this would be equally true if they were trying to sell the house.

Ihatevacations']Well besides the fact there are a couple hundred years of case law between the creation of the Constitution and now, it is teh Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, not yours.

So you think its ok for them to violate the 4th and 5th Amendment? Oh brother. You really are ignorant of the Constitution aren't you?

Oh brother. You really are ignorant of the Constitution aren't you?

There you go again Corneliu... are you able to have a civil discussion without insults? Just try it. See if you can do it.

There you go again Corneliu... are you able to have a civil discussion without insults? Just try it. See if you can do it.

Oh I can. I have infact on many occassions but when someone is blinded to the fact that the Constitution was blantently violated, as this decision did, and then tries to cover it up with BS, I get pretty irrate.

Oh I can. I have infact on many occassions but when someone is blinded to the fact that the Constitution was blantently violated, as this decision did, and then tries to cover it up with BS, I get pretty irrate.

Oh, because YOU never make any mistakes right?

Pot,
Kettle,
Black!

Oh, because YOU never make any mistakes right?

Pot,
Kettle,
Black!

Oh I've made mistakes before but not here. This is a clear cut violation of the US Constitution and its time for the Congress to wake up to that fact. I don't care if its Republican Controled or Democrat controled. This decision crosses the line and now its time to take back the courts.

Oh I've made mistakes before but not here. This is a clear cut violation of the US Constitution and its time for the Congress to wake up to that fact. I don't care if its Republican Controled or Democrat controled. This decision crosses the line and now its time to take back the courts.

So, the next time I catch you in any error, it would be okay with you if I insult you and call you names? C'mon Corneliu, be a little more mature than that. Anyway, enough said on the issue. Just remember, no one is right all the time. No one!

So, the next time I catch you in any error, it would be okay with you if I insult you and call you names? C'mon Corneliu, be a little more mature than that. Anyway, enough said on the issue. Just remember, no one is right all the time. No one!

There was only one person who was right all the time and he's dead. Crucified on a Cross a couple of thousand years ago.

Anyway, those judges that decided to violate the Constitution needs to be derobed and unceremoniously tossed right out of DC.

Do to this gross violation of the US Constitution:

I am asking all American NSers to write your Congressmen to have those responsible impeached. These 5 so called justices have overstepped their bounds and have violated the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution. They have violated their oath of office to uphold that same Constitution.

Please right your Congressmen so these 5 Justices can be removed from the Bench.

Oh I can. I have infact on many occassions
Can ANYONE actually corraborate that?

You've got it backwards.

It works like this:

State Privileges < Federal Privileges < Human Rights.

State privileges are very limited, overruled when they conflict with federal law, and are subject to a federal document (The Constitution). Human rights in theory overrule them all.

Sorry I phrased that in a confusing manner. I meant that the way I phrased it is the way things are suposed to work in the minds of those of us who want state laws that allow for, lets say medical pot, to trump fed. law against all pot but don't want the state to have the "right" to steal our property.

Like I said, if you don't feel that it is fair compensation, then it can be challenged.

Meanwhile, fair compensation is generally determined by the market price.

But they don't figure in "I like it here and don't want to move." or "This house belonged to my grandfather who left it to my father, who left it to me." This makes a house worth more than market value to someone being forced out of it.

But they don't figure in "I like it here and don't want to move." or "This house belonged to my grandfather who left it to my father, who left it to me." This makes a house worth more than market value to someone being forced out of it.

Here here Eris Illuminated. That is precisely right. You can't place a price on it if its been in the family for generations.

I say its time to retake the Supreme Court. Who is with me?

There was only one person who was right all the time and he's dead. Crucified on a Cross a couple of thousand years ago.

Well lets not go there. hehe, that's a whole other can of worms you also can't back up. Best stop while I'm feeling generous Corneliu..lol :p

Well lets not go there. hehe, that's a whole other can of worms you also can't back up. Best stop while I'm feeling generous Corneliu..lol :p

LOL! Well we do know that Jesus was a real person. The Muslims hold him up to be a prophet. Since they do, we can assume that he really did exist.

Your right though, it is another can of worms.

Do to this gross violation of the US Constitution:

I am asking all American NSers to write your Congressmen to have those responsible impeached. These 5 so called justices have overstepped their bounds and have violated the 4th and 5th Amendments of the US Constitution. They have violated their oath of office to uphold that same Constitution.

Please right your Congressmen so these 5 Justices can be removed from the Bench.

And yet another person who hasn't bothered to read the decision.

Seriously, you need to learn a bit about the law before you go off on this. Do you really think you can impeach judges because you don't agree with their interpretation of the law?

But they don't figure in "I like it here and don't want to move." or "This house belonged to my grandfather who left it to my father, who left it to me." This makes a house worth more than market value to someone being forced out of it.

Of course it does and that is an unfortunate circumstance.

It is also the reason that eminent domain is very, very rarely utilized to take people's homes.

And yet another person who hasn't bothered to read the decision.

Seriously, you need to learn a bit about the law before you go off on this. Do you really think you can impeach judges because you don't agree with their interpretation of the law?

I know precisely what the Constitution says. This is not a decision that coincides with that constution. It violates it. I'm not the only one saying it either. Congress is in an uproar. The people are furious. When the People are upset, Congress isn't happy. Don't be surprised if you hear something on impeachment. I'm writing to my congressmen so that this abominition gets overturned.

This is a gross violation. These projects are privately owned and are not public use, so I can't see how the 5th Amendment can be construed to justify this.

First of all, the entire project is not privately owned. A huge portion of the land is to be used for a public park.

Secondly, if you don't see how the 5th Amendment can be construed to justify private projects being related to eminent domain, go back over 100 years to the railroads. Then read all of the precedence on this matter up until now.

The only difference between this case and past cases was that the current use of the land did not seem, in and of itself, to be harmful to the community. As O'Connor pointed out in her dissent, that might be enough to make it unconstitutional. However, if the land were actually blighted, this would not be a problem, as per legal precedent.

Oh I've made mistakes before but not here. This is a clear cut violation of the US Constitution and its time for the Congress to wake up to that fact. I don't care if its Republican Controled or Democrat controled. This decision crosses the line and now its time to take back the courts.

Incorrect, it is a clearcut violation of your personal interpretation of the Constitution.

It is not, however, a clearcut violation of the interpretation of the Constitution that has been in effect since the 1800's. In fact, depending on how you look at it, the decision either follows precedent exactly, or goes slightly beyond it.

I know precisely what the Constitution says. This is not a decision that coincides with that constution. It violates it. I'm not the only one saying it either. Congress is in an uproar. The people are furious. When the People are upset, Congress isn't happy. Don't be surprised if you hear something on impeachment. I'm writing to my congressmen so that this abominition gets overturned.

None of that changes the fact that it is your interpretation of the Constitution that has been violated here. This is not misconduct - it is an example of five justices disagreeing with your personal interpretation.

And if you bothered to read the decision, you would find that it is based on well over 100 years of jurisprudence. The question boils down to how bad off land has to be before the government can take it and use it for private endeavors, not whether they can do it at all.

Incorrect, it is a clearcut violation of your personal interpretation of the Constitution.

It is not, however, a clearcut violation of the interpretation of the Constitution that has been in effect since the 1800's. In fact, depending on how you look at it, the decision either follows precedent exactly, or goes slightly beyond it.

Considering I'm not the only person stating that this is a violation of the Constition. Members of Congress our outraged over this.

No land should be taken for any private operation. PERIOD. That is what this is essentially saying. I am not going to give up my home for nothing. They'll have to get to me if they want me to leave. I shall be armed too. I will defend my property from developers.

I will also tie this matter up in court for years if they try too and I won't be the only one doing it. Don't be surprised if you see impeachment proceedings take place after the July 4th recess.

None of that changes the fact that it is your interpretation of the Constitution that has been violated here. This is not misconduct - it is an example of five justices disagreeing with your personal interpretation.

I guess someone here hasn't listened to any opinions from others here. I'm not the only one who thinks the court overstepped their bounds Demp. There's members of Congress that do too not to mention many people on here.

And if you bothered to read the decision, you would find that it is based on well over 100 years of jurisprudence. The question boils down to how bad off land has to be before the government can take it and use it for private endeavors, not whether they can do it at all.

*yawns* This gives developers the right to get the town to toss people of their lands. I'm sorry Demp. I don't accept it. Neither do many other people. Write your Congressmen People and lets take back our Courts.

Considering I'm not the only person stating that this is a violation of the Constition. Members of Congress our outraged over this.

Yes, and members of Congress have shown themselves to be experts on the Constitution (or any subject) time and time again...

It has nothing to do with you being the only person saying it. The point still remains that there are no grounds for anyone to claim that the court has done anything impeachable. You (and even members of Congress) disagreeing with a particular interpretation of the Constitution hardly demonstrates misconduct.

No land should be taken for any private operation. PERIOD. That is what this is essentially saying.

This decision did not make it possible for land to be taken for private operation. That was decided well over 100 years ago. The railroads were built because of eminent domain. A lot of people in Hawii own their own homes because eminent domain was used to take them away from the owners and give them to the renters. An entire blighted area in DC was taken by eminent domain and then redeveloped as housing.

THIS IS NOTHING NEW

If you really have a problem with this in all cases, you should be calling for impeachment of a lot of long-dead justices, not the ones who followed on their precedent.

The only clear argument against this that follows the way the law works is that given by O'Connor, that this particular case goes to far.

I am not going to give up my home for nothing.

It wouldn't be for nothing. In fact, it can't be. It has to be for the public good.

I will also tie this matter up in court for years if they try too and I won't be the only one doing it. Don't be surprised if you see impeachment proceedings take place after the July 4th recess.

If you can impeach the justices on this decision, then I can impeach Bush for his decisions on stem cells. After all, I disagree with them and think he is violating the Constitution by bringing his own religious views into it.

YAY!! CORNELIU SAYS IT'S OK TO IMPEACH BUSH!

If you can impeach the justices on this decision, then I can impeach Bush for his decisions on stem cells. After all, I disagree with them and think he is violating the Constitution by bringing his own religious views into it.

I know you're being sarcastic, but he is actualy. It seems that would actualy be grounds for impeachment . . .

I guess someone here hasn't listened to any opinions from others here. I'm not the only one who thinks the court overstepped their bounds Demp. There's members of Congress that do too not to mention many people on here.

Irrelevant. It still boils down to personal interpretation.

Darling, I think the court decision was wrong. That hardly means that it was misconduct, however.

Anyone with a brain who has bothered to actually look into the background of the case, and has read the decisions, would know that this is not misconduct. Is it a bad decision? I think so, but not for the knee-jerk reasons that all the idiots that don't bother to study history are spouting.

*yawns*

So you only care about the law if you agree with it?

This gives developers the right to get the town to toss people of their lands.

That is completely and totally incorrect. There is nothing at all in this decision that gives developers any such right.

What it does is allow the government to take land (compensating them as per the 5th Amendment) for economic redevelopment - with certain stipultaions. The decision is very clear that this does not mean that all such takings are constitutional. It makes a decision on this specific case, with the background of this particular case.

Again, perhaps you should actually try reading the decision.

I'm sorry Demp. I don't accept it.

You aren't qualified to make a decision on it. You haven't bothered to actually read it.

Of course, like me, you may decide that the decision was wrong even when you have read it. But unless you are completely brainless, you will realize that there was no misconduct involved.

So you only care about the law if you agree with it?


Yes actualy. If it's a bad law ignore the damn thing.

I know you're being sarcastic, but he is actualy. It seems that would actualy be grounds for impeachment . . .

Only if Bush stood up and said "My religion says X, so I want to do it this way. The end."

However, he provided non-religious reasons for his decisions. I disagree with them - and I do think they are tempered more than he admits by his personal religion. But I hardly think that it is impeacheable misconduct.

Edit: Oh, but I do sometimes wish it was...

LOL! Well we do know that Jesus was a real person. The Muslims hold him up to be a prophet. Since they do, we can assume that he really did exist.
Well there are really three aspects to prophets (such as Jesus).

1) The spiritual person
Our faith (if we have some) and the scriptures give us a portrait of Jesus as a spiritual person. Of course, it is not by any means related to science or history. But if we wanted to paint a portrait of Jesus' spiritual and moral image, we would know how to, thanks to the scriptures.

2) The historical person
Historic records give us hints, if not proofs, of Jesus's existence. I think we can be fairly sure he existed. (By the way, the Coran accepts Jesus as a prophet, but it is just an acceptance of Jewish-Christian faith and traditions as a part of Islam. Don't forget that the Coran was written more than 600 years after Jesus lived and died.)

3) The man (social person)
We have almost no record about what kind of man Jesus was. What's written in the Bible about Jesus' life is fragmentary and probably idealized (if not fictious). The accounts of Jesus' actions serve more as a way of explaining his philosophy, than as personal records. Not to mention major holes in the story (most of his adult life, if he had brothers and sisters, if he was married, what job he had when he was younger -- when you're 33, you're not so young anymore). Anyway the Bible is by no means a biography. Who cares what kind of sandals Jesus wore, or what was his favorite meal?

Yes actualy. If it's a bad law ignore the damn thing.

Considering that such actions could land you in jail, with your freedoms taken away with complete due process, wouldn't it be a better idea to try and change it?

I am very sad for you, fellow American citizens.

I sincerely hope such a law will never pass here, in Canada.

It opens a door to corporate abuse, corruption and lots of broken lives.

So... What now? If you have lived in a nice place (by the river, by the sea, by the beach, in the valley), greedy corporations will be able to grab your lot, just because they WANT it? And because they have promised to pay taxes to the city? Wow. And what next? Mafia-type rackets: "Pay us some money, or we buy your place!"
By the way, people who are forced to sell their house to municipalities, cities or countries ALWAYS get a BAD DEAL. They get the minimum possible offer.


If you believe in anything... think about this one:
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.'

Considering that such actions could land you in jail, with your freedoms taken away with complete due process, wouldn't it be a better idea to try and change it?

Back in the bad old days when seperate lunch counters were the law that IS how many people tryed to change it.

So... What now? If you have lived in a nice place (by the river, by the sea, by the beach, in the valley), greedy corporations will be able to grab your lot, just because they WANT it?

Not by the decision just made, no.

By the way, people who are forced to sell their house to municipalities, cities or countries ALWAYS get a BAD DEAL. They get the minimum possible offer.

This is true. And it is part of the reason that eminent domain is very, very rarely used. It is often akin to political suicide.

Back in the bad old days when seperate lunch counters were the law that IS how many people tryed to change it.

True. And they used non-violent means to do so. They didn't yell "If you don't let me eat at that other counter, I'm goan get my gun!"

There may be a good side to this decision (don't stop reading hearing jackasses keep going) - without this decision, very FEW people would have known that private corporations would have been grabbing land except for those it was happening too, NOR would they be ouraged that politicians would allow it. Now everyone who can pick up a newspaper knows about it, thus even ATTEMPTING it now would be asking for a call from the local moving agency to help you remove everything from your office in the legislative bulding

butt sex with dogs

True. And they used non-violent means to do so. They didn't yell "If you don't let me eat at that other counter, I'm goan get my gun!"


Well now we just went from discussing ignoring bad laws to discussing defending my home and property. I'm not going to say "I'm goan get my gun" (to reuse your hillbilly vernacular) because they won't allow medical marijana, but if they send armed people to remove me from my home that I did not agree to sell and did nothing to deserve loosing I will damn well defend myself.

Well now we just went from discussing ignoring bad laws to discussing defending my home and property. I'm not going to say "I'm goan get my gun" (to reuse your hillbilly vernacular) because they won't allow medical marijana, but if they send armed people to remove me from my home that I did not agree to sell and did nothing to deserve loosing I will damn well defend myself.
And promptly be killed. Congrats, you've done nothing. How about you use nonviolent means to generate popular support for your cause, then boot out the polits who tried to seize your house.

And if you bothered to read the decision, you would find that it is based on well over 100 years of jurisprudence. The question boils down to how bad off land has to be before the government can take it and use it for private endeavors, not whether they can do it at all.

From the case:


"In Nov 2000, the NDLC initiated the condemnation proceedings that gave rise to this case.

There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area.

This court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put in use for the general public."

SO to sum up:

City determines an area is "economically depressed".
Condemnes "non-blighted" homes merely because they won't sell and thereby allowing private use of land.
SCOTUS states that the city did a lot of "research" on it and they won't second guess it.

Therefore, areas that localities feel can be better managed can now be condemned and sold to private investors as long as they cross all their t's and dot all thier i's.

What would happen if a group of 40 citizens want to seize a Wal Mart's lot to build their own housing project? Would the city evict the Wal Mart? Worth a try...
I mean... nothing in this law says it wouldn't work the OTHER way. :D

What would happen if a group of 40 citizens want to seize a Wal Mart's lot to build their own housing project? Would the city evict the Wal Mart? Worth a try...
I mean... nothing in this law says it wouldn't work the OTHER way. :D

For every house they take, we bulldoze a Supercenter to replace them. That would crimp their bottom line!

Eutrusca makes a good point. Taking land( as long as the owner is compensated) is stated in the Constitution.

I will say this. Government agencys in the U.S. are being given too much power.

Eutrusca makes a good point. Taking land( as long as the owner is compensated) is stated in the Constitution.

I will say this. Government agencys in the U.S. are being given too much power.


Sure it is, for "public use". That definition was just relaxed considerably w/ this decision.

Commercial developments built on seized land should be made available to all, FOR FREE. No entry fee. No limit to access. After all, if it's for "public use", let's make it public FOR REAL. LOL.
Let's see if they make any profit. :D

I am very sad for you, fellow American citizens.

I sincerely hope such a law will never pass here, in Canada.



Actually, Sarkasis, Canada does not have the protection of private property written into it's constitution. In practise, we DO have eminent domain laws that allow personal property to be appropriated for compensation, and that is how many roads, schools, hospitals, power lines, etc are built. However, I have yet to hear of abuse of our eminent domain laws that is as egrigious as has happened in the States, and I've been paying attention to this issue for a couple of years now.

However, it could be argued that there have been some pretty nasty abuses of the system in Canada as well -- most of the ones I've heard of have surrounded mineral rights. When you buy a home, you don't purchase the mineral rights, just the land. Depending on where you are, you can go out and buy the mineral rights separately, but generally speaking they either belong to the crown -- or to a mining corporation. If you live in a city, it's highly unlikely you'll ever have your land appropriated for mining rights, but rural landowners have not always been so lucky. For example, here in BC, the Campbell government declared that mining rights were more important than individual property rights, because they had a greater impact on the economy. Essentially, that law states that mining is the first and best use of land. One property near Kamloops, a privately owned ranch and selective logging operation, was taken over by mining corporation to have their property clear cut and mined because the clay on their property is excellent for kitty litter. I kid you not. The family has been fighting the order in court, and are nearly bankrupt. If you hate this, don't buy Cattitudes, WC Cat, Kozy Kitty, or Wunder Cat kitty litters.

The really sad part is that in Canada anyone can get the mineral rights to a property for a mere $25. The landowner had applied for the mineral rights and had been told not to worry, because at the time, clay was not classified as a mineral. But unbeknowst to the family, classifications were changed and Western Industrial Clay Products bought the mineral rights after seeing an assay the family had done while preparing to dig a well (which becomes public information).

I also know of similar cases regarding coal mines in Nova Scotia.

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?

The people of course get money and stuff like that. But if someone made me leave my home I wouldnt move.

The bottom line boils down to this:
Nobody has the right to take mine or anyone else’s property just because they think they can use it better. People have a right o their property, as is stated in the fourteenth amendment.

As someone who will be voting in the nest election (2006) I’m writing a letter to my representatives, as are my parents, as are my grandparents, as are my uncles and aunts, my cousins and the rest of my far flung extended family.

However, it could be argued that there have been some pretty nasty abuses of the system in Canada as well -- most of the ones I've heard of have surrounded mineral rights. When you buy a home, you don't purchase the mineral rights, just the land. Depending on where you are, you can go out and buy the mineral rights separately, but generally speaking they either belong to the crown -- or to a mining corporation. If you live in a city, it's highly unlikely you'll ever have your land appropriated for mining rights, but rural landowners have not always been so lucky. For example, here in BC, the Campbell government declared that mining rights were more important than individual property rights, because they had a greater impact on the economy. Essentially, that law states that mining is the first and best use of land. One property near Kamloops, a privately owned ranch and selective logging operation, was taken over by mining corporation to have their property clear cut and mined because the clay on their property is excellent for kitty litter. I kid you not. The family has been fighting the order in court, and are nearly bankrupt. If you hate this, don't buy Cattitudes, WC Cat, Kozy Kitty, or Wunder Cat kitty litters.

HOLY CRAP :eek:

I knew about the mining rights, but I didn't know about these cases.
It would be nice to have the mining rights embedded into any ownership papers.

If you believe in anything... think about this one:
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.'

I wish they'd kept in:

SEVENTEEN: Thou shalt keep thine dirty hands off of the children.

...would have spared us the Michael Jackson trial AND the Church Abuse Controversy...

Eminent domain backed (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_347106.html)

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private developement....

I'm sorry but this just crosses the line. The following judges need to be impeached and I am asking that every American here to write, email, and call (on monday for this one) your Congressmen on Capitol Hill and to get these justices removed:

John Paul Stevens
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
Anthoney Kennedy

I congratulate Sandra Day O'Conner and the other three justices that stood up for Constitutional Principles.

From someone in Connecticut that started all of this, Residen Bill Von Winkle Said "he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. 'I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.'"

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Von Winkle is right. This isn't the last word. Do not let this decision stand. Do something about this. Let the Congress know how pissed off you are at Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy.

It is time to take back that that belongs to US and not to the Corporations.

Eminent domain backed (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_347106.html[/url)

I'm sorry but this just crosses the line. The following judges need to be impeached and I am asking that every American here to write, email, and call (on monday for this one) your Congressmen on Capitol Hill and to get these justices removed:

John Paul Stevens
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
Anthoney Kennedy

I congratulate Sandra Day O'Conner and the other three justices that stood up for Constitutional Principles.

From someone in Connecticut that started all of this, Residen Bill Von Winkle Said "he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. 'I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.'"

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Von Winkle is right. This isn't the last word. Do not let this decision stand. Do something about this. Let the Congress know how pissed off you are at Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy.

It is time to take back that that belongs to US and not to the Corporations.

Blah blah blah blah

*insert [usually] irrational outcry at unliked decision here*

Ihatevacations']Blah blah blah blah

*insert [usually] irrational outcry at unliked decision here*

Seconded.

But where oh where is Corneliu's outrage when Bush did stupid fucking stuff that he should of been impeached for in his first term?

Blah, blah, blah is right!

Seconded.

But where oh where is Corneliu's outrage when Bush did stupid fucking stuff that he should of been impeached for in his first term?

Blah, blah, blah is right!

I'm waiting on evidence for said impeachment. No one has provided any :rolleyes:

I'm waiting on evidence for said impeachment. No one has provided any :rolleyes:
Obstruction of justice during the 9/11 proceedings, lieing to and misguiding the american people and congress, etc etc

Ihatevacations']Obstruction of justice during the 9/11 proceedings,

How?

lieing to and misguiding the american people and congress, etc etc

I'm sorry but care to show me where lying and misguiding took place because if your referring to the intelligence that he used, I'm sorry but that is not evidence. Bush just used Bad intel so care to show me where he lied?

I'm waiting on evidence for said impeachment. No one has provided any :rolleyes:

Oh there is more than enough evidence Corneliu, you just don't want to see it. Circumstantial evidence convicts more people than any other reason in the United States of America, did you know that? He would be found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt in any court room in this land!

I'm sorry but care to show me where lying and misguiding took place because if your referring to the intelligence that he used, I'm sorry but that is not evidence. Bush just used Bad intel so care to show me where he lied?

Oh and btw Corneliu, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

How?

Did you miss teh repeated attempts to prevent having to testify themselves?


I'm sorry but care to show me where lying and misguiding took place because if your referring to the intelligence that he used, I'm sorry but that is not evidence. Bush just used Bad intel so care to show me where he lied?
*cough* Downing street memo *cough*

Ihatevacations']*cough* Downing street memo *cough*

Yup, and it's been authenticated.. so you can't say it was just made up either.

Ihatevacations']Did you miss teh repeated attempts to prevent having to testify themselves?

Do you also know that he's the president that was trying to run a war? Anyway, he testified so you can't hang him on that.

*cough* Downing street memo *cough*

*cough* not proof *cough*

*cough* not proof *cough*
I would be under the impression that a memo from before the war showing that Bush wanted to push a war on Iraq and build its case on iraq being some sort of physical threat with WMDs pretty much counters the "faulty intelligence" bullshit and stands as proof he purposefully manipulated the American people AND congress

*cough* not proof *cough*

Umm have you not been following the story Corneliu? It's been authenticated. Hello!!!

You using old info again?

Ihatevacations']I would be under the impression that a memo from before the war showing that Bush wanted to push a war on Iraq and build its case on iraq being some sort of physical threat with WMDs pretty much counters the "faulty intelligence" bullshit and stands as proof he purposefully manipulated the American people AND congress

A memo that came out in 2002. On the public record since then and it is only now been picked up? Give me a break. If it was as much as a bomb shell that people want to turn this into, it would've came out during not only the Presidential election but also the British elections too. It didn't. That says plenty right there.

Umm have you not been following the story Corneliu? It's been authenticated. Hello!!!

You using old info again?

"its nothing new" Tony Blair.

Corneliu, you're in d-e-n-i-a-l!

A memo that came out in 2002. On the public record since then and it is only now been picked up? Give me a break. If it was as much as a bomb shell that people want to turn this into, it would've came out during not only the Presidential election but also the British elections too. It didn't. That says plenty right there.
On the public record since when? Can you prove that?

Ihatevacations']On the public record since when? Can you prove that?

Considering there's already about 15-20 threads on this issue.... all you have to do is search through them.

Considering there's already about 15-20 threads on this issue.... all you have to do is search through them.

Gee, am I going to have to make you eat crow again Corneliu? No one had a verified hard copy of the memo before the election! No one in the media that is.

Considering there's already about 15-20 threads on this issue.... all you have to do is search through them.
i havnt seen any since ive been here, since you already know, state the proof

Ihatevacations']i havnt seen any since ive been here, since you already know, state the proof

Its been known about since 2002. I'm not going to dig it out because 1) it has no relevence to this thread and 2) its british. If it was so important, it would've came out during Blair's re-election. It didn't. That says more than anything else.

Not to mention it didn't prove that anything was fixed either.

Its been known about since 2002. I'm not going to dig it out because 1) it has no relevence to this thread and 2) its british. If it was so important, it would've came out during Blair's re-election. It didn't. That says more than anything else.

Not to mention it didn't prove that anything was fixed either.
Since you inherently know it has been around, provie the proof

Ihatevacations']Since you inherently know it has been around, provie the proof

it has no bearing on this thread so I'm not even going to go there.

This bullshit has got to stop..


Article:



Shocking New Developments In Supreme Court vs. Homeowners Case
News Media Blackout On 'Revving Bulldozers,' Intimidation And Harassment Of New London Residents

Prison Planet | June 24 2005

America has been reacting with overwhelming revulsion over the past two days to the Supreme Court's decision that local governments can force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted, and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

However, shocking details that cast this entire farce in its true light have flown under the radar of mainstream media reports.

Those details came to the fore today during an interview on The Alex Jones Show, nationally syndicated on the Genesis Communications Radio Network, on which Michael Cristofaro, one of the New London Connecticut homeowners fighting the unconstitutional decision, appeared as a guest.

Cristofaro's family have lived in New London for forty two years and the city had already previously seized his first home by imminent domain in 1971.

Cristofaro related a series of actions by local government officials and their hired New London Development Corporation thugs that amount to nothing less than outright intimidation, harassment and extortion.

These include;

- An insulting offer of $60,000 from the government on a home worth $215,000.

- Unannounced visits to Cristofaro's elderly parent's home demanding they sign a contract to hand over their property.

- Intimidating and harassing phone calls at all hours of the day.

- Parking bulldozers and wrecking balls outside the houses pointing at the property with threats of "your house is next."

- Revving the engines of the bulldozers outside the houses in the early morning hours of the morning.

- Cristofaro's mother becoming distraught and suffering a heart attack after being served with condemnation papers that said she no longer owned her property and had ninety days to leave.

- A death bed plea from a 93-year-old resident begging "what about my house, what about my house?" The man had been living in his home for 80 years. The contractors would park construction vehicles on his property, make his house literally shake and would, Waco-style, shine bright floodlights into his home as his blind wife cowered in fear.

- A threat to charge residents back rent if they lost the case, effectively meaning the homeowners will have to pay the city to be kicked out of their own homes. One resident, William von Winkle (pictured above), would owe the city $200,000 in back rent.

- When the Supreme Court decision was made on Thursday, the city had police cruisers and a fire truck casing the neighborhood because they feared the residents would riot. "What were they planning on doing? Hosing us down?" stated Cristofaro.

- Real Estate agents paid by the government to force residents to sign contracts to hand over their homes were on an $8,000 commission to get the signatures by any means possible.

- William von Winkle's apartment tenants were forcibly evicted and locked out from their homes in the early morning hours during winter with snow on the ground, before the city even owned the property. Von Winkle had to break back into his own apartment block to prevent his tenants from freezing to death.

Cristofaro said 75 different families, most elderly and sick, were subject to this brutal torment.

Alex Jones telephoned several of Cristofaro's neighbors in the area and they confirmed that they had also been subjected to this persecution.

Imagine if your neighbour hired a bulldozer, parked it outside your house, and started revving it up and threatening to demolish your property if you didn't sign a document and hand your home over to him. He'd go to jail but the city government can do it to elderly people and the Supreme Court backs them up every inch of the way.

The Supreme Court also ruled twice in the past that blacks weren't human beings, are we supposed to just blindly follow their every dictate or should we stand up and fight these robber barons?

Cristofaro compared the situation to living in the Soviet Union. "Welcome to Russia," he stated, "that's what it feels like, you have no rights, the US Supreme Court just took away our property rights."

Alex Jones drew the analogy of Mafia tactics in assessing how the city government had treated the New London residents.

"These corporations come in and pay off city council members and then they come and steal your land and don't even pay you what it's worth."

"You take my cousin Luigi, you put him on as a store manager, you pay him $30,000 a year or we're gonna burn your business down."

"It's extortion ladies and gentlemen, it's racketeering."

Jones compared the activities to the Godfather movie, where the individual is given an 'offer he can't refuse' and told "sign the contract or your brains are going to be on it."

Cristofaro described the bulldozers aggressively revving their engines in front of the houses.

"Can you imagine seeing these big bulldozers pointing at your house revving their engines and you see a little smoke stack up on top of the little lid opening and closing with all that black smoke billowing. And all they'd do is rev it for about five or ten minutes, turn it off, turn it back on then they'd raise the front of the bulldozer."

The New London residents plan to fight the government to the bitter end and are currently pursuing numerous different legal options.

Support these brave residents in their stance against the New London city Mafia government and the New London Development Corporation. E mail this news article to all the radio hosts, World Net Daily, the Drudge Report, all the TV news stations, your Congressmen and Senators. The mainstream media ignored the very worst aspects of the case, the Soviet style harassment and intimidation of the New London homeowners. Demand that they bring these details to their reader's attention.

This bullshit has got to stop..


Article:

I agree. These bullshit threads and bullshit articles must stop.

Stop.

I agree. These bullshit threads and bullshit articles must stop.

Stop.



Walk outside, Cat, and grab some fresh air...



:sniper: :upyours:

Up yours, Supreme Cun-- er, "Court"



Article:




Supreme Court Rules That No One Owns Their Home
Gives free reign to roving land barons, their agents and banks

Infowars.com | June 24, 2005
By Alex Jones

Private property rights are the foundation of freedom. Now developers can pay off your local politicians and then come in and steal your property without even giving you best use price. Imagine middle class neighborhoods across America being bulldozed because developers have written up a proposal for making more money off of your property. Either it's your property or it isn't.

The United States is simply going back to feudalism. In medieval England, before the Magna Carta, in 1214 the local lord would decide what you could and could not do with the King's property.

This ruling overturns 800 years of common law and common sense. It butchers the Bill of Rights. To put it frankly, it's gone.

So many Americans are asking why the Justices would make such a decision, overtly, 180 degrees away from freedom. That's the point. It's in your face.

The big police state dog is off the porch, and they think there is nothing you can do about it.

The all-powerful Imperial State has thrown down the gauntlet. They have slapped the American people upside the head and brutally raped us, and we have put up with it. So, now they're placing what's left of American freedom on a spit so they can roast and eat us.

The founding fathers said over and over again that the level of tyranny under which we will live is the exact amount that we will accept. A group of hard-core criminals has gained control of our society. They could care less about the future of this country or the general public's welfare. What we are witnessing is a mad gold rush of corrupt politicians and corporations strip-mining western society.

We are being looted and sacked like ancient Rome by a heard of blood-thirsty
barbarians.

The only difference is the barbarians of today have high-tech public relation firms and cable news channels launching their psychological warfare barrages: "lie down, lie down, don't resistGovernment loves you. Give up liberty for security..Tasering 82-Year-old Alzheimer patients is good..Mercury in vaccines is nutritious..Open borders means safety..Submit to us..Trust us..We don't lie.."

The fact is, just because the Supreme Court says we don't have any property
rights doesn't mean it's true. A previous court ruled that black Americans were not human beings and thus had no rights. Would you follow a similar decree today?

Despots know the power of setting precidents. That's why they've been bragging about their unprecedented ruling. I for one am glad that the mask is beginning to slide from the demon's face. They've been land-grabbing for a long time. Now it's just going to be more overt. So let it come, and let everybody know what you are: a pack of wolves, a pack of criminals, a pack of liars, and a pack of scum.

Gee, your reasoned arguments are so persuasive ...

No wonder you need several threads on the same topic. One thread would not be sufficient to contain such flowing oratory.

Gee, your reasoned arguments are so persuasive ...

No wonder you need several threads on the same topic. One thread would not be sufficient to contain such flowing oratory.



I don't speak to pro-landgrabbing freedom-haters.

<snip>

I knew a lot of this already. This is happening in my backyard. I was born in New London. I know the exact neighborhood this is happening in. I hope that if something like this happened in my neighborhood, that my neighbors and I will have the courage to be just as stubborn.

Whoa!

Where's Smokey the NSer when you don't really want but kinda really need him?

Oh well *douses Cat tribe and Letokia with water*

As to the article, it sounds pretty horrible, but I'm not sure it's actually happening per se. I mean I would think the media would be all over this. Of course I don't know, as I don't live there, it could be going on, but I'm not sure PrisonPlanet.com is the best source.

Regardless I think the Supreme court decsison was a mistake, and if severely abused could lead to stuff like that.

This bullshit has got to stop..

Article:
If that's accurate, then I have to say that's a considerable bit over the top. Sounds to me like the voters in that city need to get a campaign going to unseat the mayor and the entire city council. :headbang:

Except that there is a significant wait period of several years before the next election comes up. Who knows, it may even become a voting scare tactic.

"Vote for me, or your house will be replaced with Wal-Mart"

If that's accurate, then I have to say that's a considerable bit over the top. Sounds to me like the voters in that city need to get a campaign going to unseat the mayor and the entire city council. :headbang:

I can vouch for some of that. *nod* The lockout definitely happened. The bulldozers and other construction vehicles parked out by their houses definitely happened. I know New London. I don't doubt the rest.

I agree. These bullshit threads and bullshit articles must stop.

Stop.

Why the crankiness Cat?

Whoa!

Where's Smokey the NSer when you don't really want but kinda really need him?

Oh well *douses Cat tribe and Letokia with water*

As to the article, it sounds pretty horrible, but I'm not sure it's actually happening per se. I mean I would think the media would be all over this. Of course I don't know, as I don't live there, it could be going on, but I'm not sure PrisonPlanet.com is the best source.

Regardless I think the Supreme court decsison was a mistake, and if severely abused could lead to stuff like that.Well yes, but the article does look a little biased. "Brave residents?" "Unjust SC decisions?" In fact, the article looks like flamebait, although the post does not. It reminds me of certain things I read about the NYC welfare department taking away random children to use them as guinea pigs for AIDS medicines that often blinded them or caused them to become insane. When someone tried to take them off the medicine, they were brought to court for child abuse. The article wasn't all true.

Letokia, can't you consolidate these articles into one thread? It really gets crowded when you make seperate threads for what should be the same topic.

Letokia, can't you consolidate these articles into one thread? It really gets crowded when you make seperate threads for what should be the same topic.



Sorry 'bout that...I'll do that next time I rant :p

This is nothing new! It has happened many times before throughout history. It's an old government tactic to gain more money and power. First they sell Public land and auction off confiscated items (homes, cars, electronics, etc), then when they start running out of land to sell they confiscate it and repeat the process. GOVERNMENTS AT THEIR BEST! This is just one example, another would be a STOCK MARKET CRASH, and that is due and just around the bend. GOVERNMENTS ARE THE KINGS AT SCAMMING, ABUSING AND OPPRESING THE MASSES! That's what they are paid and ordered to do by the Elite Shadow Government (Rocerfellers and Rothchilds, etc). Europe is their goal for their ultimate seat of power to rule the world. The US is on a downword spiral and headed into oblivion. Soon it will become a 3rd world country. It's part of the plan. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hope you all enjoy your new chaotic and evil empire. I'll be heading for the hills somewhere, when the time comes, and that is very soon. GOD bless!

This is nothing new! It has happened many times before throughout history. It's an old government tactic to gain more money and power. First they sell Public land and auction off confiscated items (homes, cars, electronics, etc), then when they start running out of land to sell they confiscate it and repeat the process. GOVERNMENTS AT THEIR BEST! This is just one example, another would be a STOCK MARKET CRASH, and that is due and just around the bend. GOVERNMENTS ARE THE KINGS AT SCAMMING, ABUSING AND OPPRESING THE MASSES! That's what they are paid and ordered to do by the Elite Shadow Government (Rocerfellers and Rothchilds, etc). Europe is their goal for their ultimate seat of power to rule the world. The US is on a downword spiral and headed into oblivion. Soon it will become a 3rd world country. It's part of the plan. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hope you all enjoy your new chaotic and evil empire. I'll be heading for the hills somewhere, when the time comes, and that is very soon. GOD bless!Trolling, anyone?

*grabs a bucket of water*

Well yes, but the article does look a little biased. "Brave residents?" "Unjust SC decisions?" In fact, the article looks like flamebait, although the post does not. It reminds me of certain things I read about the NYC welfare department taking away random children to use them as guinea pigs for AIDS medicines that often blinded them or caused them to become insane. When someone tried to take them off the medicine, they were brought to court for child abuse. The article wasn't all true.

Well I was calling the spat between Cat and Letokia something Smokey might want a part of, not the original post per se.

I agree the article seems at the very least pretty biased, and probably isn't entirely forthcoming or truthful.

@Arnburg - Viva la Revolution!!!! We will hang the last capitalist by the rope he uses eminent domain to take from us, but we reposess it from him by force... to hang him with!

Well I was calling the spat between Cat and Letokia something Smokey might want a part of, not the original post per se.

I agree the article seems at the very least pretty biased, and probably isn't entirely forthcoming or truthful.

@Arnburg - Viva la Revolution!!!! We will hang the last capitalist by the rope he uses eminent domain to take from us, but we reposess it from him by force... to hang him with!*douses Kroisistan*

Letokia, can't you consolidate these articles into one thread? It really gets crowded when you make seperate threads for what should be the same topic.Yeah...posting lots of threads on the same topic is spam or (depending on the topic) trolling. Although you're a n00b so I wouldn't expect you to know that. Just for future reference.

*douses Kroisistan*
*steals Czardas' bucket of water through clever manipulation of eminent domain*
Muwahahahahaaa

*steals Czardas' bucket of water through clever manipulation of eminent domain*
Muwahahahahaaa*calls Smokey the NSer for help*

*alternately, takes the matter to a higher power, the mods*

I bet everyone in that neighborhood will vote next time.

I bet everyone in that neighborhood will vote next time.

Possibly the only good thing that could come out of this whole thing.

I knew a lot of this already. This is happening in my backyard. I was born in New London. I know the exact neighborhood this is happening in. I hope that if something like this happened in my neighborhood, that my neighbors and I will have the courage to be just as stubborn.

They wouldn't do that in Texas, or at least not most of that stuff, if I'm correct, In Texas, you can legally open fire at someone trespassing on your property.

This bullshit has got to stop..


Article:
They try to take my house I'm goin on a friggin killing spree. This shit just pisses me off. Who the hell does the government and Supreme Court think they are. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Edit: Ok, maybe I wouldn't go on a killing spree but I'd get some buddies and rough up the guys tryin to boot me.

They wouldn't do that in Texas, or at least not most of that stuff, if I'm correct, In Texas, you can legally open fire at someone trespassing on your property.

Yeah, well Texas makes as many opoortunities to open fire as they can. ;)

Possibly the only good thing that could come out of this whole thing.

Maybe. maybe not. A couple of things occur to me:

1) if they have a Machine in place, those votes might never see the light of day-or they may be buried under votes of, shall we say, questionable parentage?
Recent experience in Washington State shows it most clearly: Stalin was right, it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes, that decides elections. All any Machine needs to do, is rewrite the local regulations to allow persons to register the elections office as their legal address.


2.) if the neighbourhood in question isn't districted out, those voters will be registering somewhere else, in small numbers that can be erased as far as political clout goes.

Maybe. maybe not. A couple of things occur to me:

Here I was, thinking people might become more involved in government and then you go and make me all sad again.

Here I was, thinking people might become more involved in government and then you go and make me all sad again.

Sorry about that. My own bummer flows out-I really thought the system worked when people did everything they were supposed to do, I thought Judges could be trusted to use their brains, and I thought that maybe things weren't so bad. I had hope, but it's about gone now. and I guess it's slipped into my posts. I expect we'll see a lot of this, as the New Nobility stakes out its claims over us serfs. The system's become so utterly corrupted on both sides now, I just don't think I have any hope left that things will, in fact, get better.

The system's become so utterly corrupted on both sides now, I just don't think I have any hope left that things will, in fact, get better.

You can’t give up hope. Who knows what will happen? Maybe the people will rise up and demand that action be taken. Maybe abuse of this ruling will alienate the people so much, that politicians on the left and right will see an irresistible opportunity and will pass an amendment to ban imminent domain for private use. You have to keep hope, because it is one of the few things no one can take from you.

They wouldn't do that in Texas, or at least not most of that stuff, if I'm correct, In Texas, you can legally open fire at someone trespassing on your property.

You can legally use force to remove someone illegally trespassing on your property.

Or legally, if you can claim you didn't know who they were or what the hell they were doing there.

And make it stick.

Not just in Texas. California as well, and I bet you could make it stick in any local court.

No wonder you need several threads on the same topic. One thread would not be sufficient to contain such flowing oratory.
ROFL :fluffle:

Well, so much for private property. Buy some land, build a house then along comes a developer and takes it from you.

Cross out "burn flag," and write in "take stuff for no good reason," on the upcoming constitutional admendment and you should be fine.

Well now we just went from discussing ignoring bad laws to discussing defending my home and property. I'm not going to say "I'm goan get my gun" (to reuse your hillbilly vernacular) because they won't allow medical marijana, but if they send armed people to remove me from my home that I did not agree to sell and did nothing to deserve loosing I will damn well defend myself.

So that is how you would fight an original aspect of the Constitution?

I would still say, if you don't like eminent domain, you need to be fighting it by trying to get it amended, not by getting yourself killed.


SO to sum up:

City determines an area is "economically depressed".
Condemnes "non-blighted" homes merely because they won't sell and thereby allowing private use of land.
SCOTUS states that the city did a lot of "research" on it and they won't second guess it.

Therefore, areas that localities feel can be better managed can now be condemned and sold to private investors as long as they cross all their t's and dot all thier i's.

Almost. However, the decision clearly states that this will not apply to any localities that the government feels can be bettre managed. It very clearly points out that this is a decision relating to this case and all other cases must be looked at on their own merits.

Meanwhile, governments have been able to condemn localities and sell them to private endeavors for well over 100 years. The only difference in this case is that the private companies are not common carriers and the current use of the land cannot be said to be, in and of itself, harmful to the community.

It is the last aspect that I, like O'Connor, think is important.

I'm sorry but this just crosses the line. The following judges need to be impeached and I am asking that every American here to write, email, and call (on monday for this one) your Congressmen on Capitol Hill and to get these justices removed:

John Paul Stevens
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
Anthoney Kennedy


I'm so glad we can impeach people who have clearly committed no true misconduct, but we simply disagree with them.

That is wonderful. Now I can impeach Bush, Chambliss, Isakson, .....

This is gonna be fun!

I'm waiting on evidence for said impeachment. No one has provided any :rolleyes:

That's funny, since your only evidence for the impeachment of these judges is "I disagree with them!!!!"

Hell, a lot of people disagreed with Roe v. Wade too, so I guess all those justices should have been impeached?

A lot of people have disagreed with many decisions. However, if you actually bothered to look into the history here, and into the case, you would see that you have no grounds. Instead, you choose to remain ignorant - and to flaunt that ignorance to the world.

That's funny, since your only evidence for the impeachment of these judges is "I disagree with them!!!!"

That's funny. I could've sworn that SCOTUS violated the US Constitution. Why yes they did! Do I have to pull it out to prove it to you?

Hell, a lot of people disagreed with Roe v. Wade too, so I guess all those justices should have been impeached?

I wouldn't be upset if they were but I don't care if it does or not. It probably will get overturned sooner or later.

A lot of people have disagreed with many decisions. However, if you actually bothered to look into the history here, and into the case, you would see that you have no grounds. Instead, you choose to remain ignorant - and to flaunt that ignorance to the world.

Do I have to pull out the Constitution to hit you upside the head with?