NationStates Jolt Archive

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!

You have to prove what they did is a violation of the US Constitution and a high crime/misdamener for the President. You'll find no proof.

However, for SCOTUS impeachment, we have the grounds here. Taking away the people's right to own property. That's a violation of the constitution. Have a nice day.

However, for SCOTUS impeachment, we have the grounds here. Taking away the people's right to own property. That's a violation of the constitution. Have a nice day.

You have no proof that they have done any such thing.

In fact, if you weren't so intent on remaining completely ignorant of the situation, and read the decision, you would see that there are absolutely no grounds for that statement.

If you are angry that the government can sometimes take land - you need to be fighting against the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

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?

Do I have to pull out 200 years of jurisprudence, as well as the current decision, as well as the Constitution itself?

You are being incredibly idiotic here, and you know it. There is no reason to suggest that your own interpretation is the end-all be-all here. And, if you weren't so hell-bent on remaining ignorant of all the facts of the case, you would read the decision and would find that you have no grounds whatsoever for this claim.

If you don't like this interpretation of the phrase, you're going to have to go back and impeach some justices who died a long time ago.

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

I've read the Constitution. I've also read the case. You have only done one of these two things. I'm sorry, but a disagreement in interpretation does not constitute misconduct - and unless you are much less intelligent than I have gotten the impression you are, you know it.

Wow, you people are really convinced that you have to remain completely ignorant of the facts, aren't you?

Why don't you try actually reading the decision (and the concurring, and the dissents), before you spout a bunch of idiotic bullshit?

If you are angry that the government can sometimes take land - you need to be fighting against the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.

Or you could refer to the fourteenth amendment, passed later and thus overruling the fifth.

Or you could refer to the fourteenth amendment, passed later and thus overruling the fifth.

Incorrect.

The 14th applies the 5th to the states. Before the 14th, the states could take land with no compensation or reason at all. However, the 14th has been held to apply the other amendments to the state (and often local) governments as well. Thus, the 5th Amendment must now be upheld.


((Cute claiming that the 14th overrides the 5th though. There goes the ability to plead the 5th...))

Edit: Sometimes I wonder if the majority of the people on this board completely failed their government and history classes.

Fallout shelteres for sale, dirt cheap. Free installation with the purchase of one year of rations and ammunition (for use against the mutant freaks that will arise after the Cleansing).
Today only, pickled beef liver. High in vitamin A. Tasty treat for those long days spend in your 5x10 bunker waiting for the radiation to go down.

The 14th applies the 5th to the states. Before the 14th, the states could take land with no compensation or reason at all. However, the 14th has been held to apply the other amendments to the state (and often local) governments as well. Thus, the 5th Amendment must now be upheld

Well, judging by what the fourteenth amendment actually says in plain English, a state can never take someone’s land except to punish them for crime. Seems like imminent domain is reserved to the Federal government. That makes sense too. Since, they would be too distant, as a governing body, to agree to take one specific neighborhood.

((Cute claiming that the 14th overrides the 5th though. There goes the ability to plead the 5th...))

Cute, deluding yourself into thinking that is what I actually believe. Come on. That’s like saying that someone believes the thirteenth amendment throws out all of section 2 of Article I. There goes the census and electing the House of Representatives.

We don't need four threads on this. iMerge.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Well, judging by what the fourteenth amendment actually says in plain English, a state can never take someone’s land except to punish them for crime. Seems like imminent domain is reserved to the Federal government. That makes sense too. Since, they would be too distant, as a governing body, to agree to take one specific neighborhood.
No, it isn't, if we disregard the 14th for a moment, then the States can abuse eminent domain all that they wish (recall that the bill of rights did not apply to the states until the 14th). Now, adding it in, it only states that after 'due process' can a person be removed of property. Due process does not necissarily mean judicial preceedings, instead it is defined legally as "An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual." One sort anyway. However, the 14th amendment is referring mostly to substantive due process, which is defined as this: "a requirement that laws and regulations must be related to a legitimate government interest (as crime prevention) and may not contain provisions that result in the unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual".

So as long as the use of eminent domain isn't arbitrary and has a legitimate government interest, then it can be used by states.

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.



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.



Because a single cloud moved a bit the the right.

Panic is not warranted here, nor is it going to help anything.
Panic, no. Serious concern is definitely warranted, despite your reassuring platitudes and generalities to the contrary.

This stuff isn't going to be forgotten about. Some stupid judges fuck the public over. The COMPANIES will throw you out of your home. They will offer you $60k for a $215k house. They'll bother you, make nuisances of themselves etc. This ruling is complete bullshit. I'd like to see the supreme court's houses get taken away, maybe then they'd know what they actually did. I think there is a time when they get to old to serve in the supreme court, in which case we need new judges. That is this time.

That part's too bad... The next judge to leave is likely one of the four that dissented against this opinion. :(

Oh well, nothing to be done for it, if Bush can replace Judge Rehnquist with someone of like mind when the time comes and then one more during the next year or two, these sorts of cases will start to go the other way :D


That will be a Happy Happy ~ Joy Joy Day!!!


See, Hope lives eternal!

Panic, no. Serious concern is definitely warranted, despite your reassuring platitudes and generalities to the contrary.

I never claimed that serious concern was not warranted.

However, what I am seeing is panic.

Oh and a bunch of idiotic cries of "We should impeach the justices!!!!!"

Neither is warranted.

We must also remember that this was 5-4 decision. It barely passed. That hardly suggests that a similar case, with a slightly different background, wouldn't go the other way - and (to all the laymen who don't bother with actually reading the things) seem to set different precedent.

Kennedy, for instance, seemed to waver quite a bit. Had the details in this case not been as clearcut (in his mind), it seems fairly obvious that he would've gone the other way. Thus, in a different case, it is likely that he will.

Well, the decision to allow governments to profit by siezing property and giving it to others drew first blood in Texas. On the day after the decision was announced, officials in the beachfront town of Freeport, Texas, announced they would move forward with plans to commandeer property owned by two seafood companies in order to allow the construction of a 900-slip private marina.

The editorial in the WSJ goes on to say

Freeport will even be loaning the developers $6 million to finance the project, and if it fails the town won't be getting its money back. What is certain is that the displacement of the two seafood companies will cost scores of jobs.

So, the developers and the local governments have wasted no time in exploiting this "narrowly defined act of political suicide".

Ouch, I think another chunk of the sky just hit me.

OK. I am going to jump headfirst into this force 10 tropical storm.

The government needs to have the power of eminent domain. That much is clear. It is not possible to develop the infrastructure required for a country to function if some pig stubborn individual refuses to sell the land that connects the two halves of the interstate together for any price whatsoever.

Now what is the most efficient way for the government to provide infrastructure. From my point of view it is to contract private companies to do so. The government after all is a debating house and legislative body, not a civil engineering company. Its expertise lies in other areas than building roads or airports etc.

So by extension these private companies need to have eminent domain delegated to them to be able to fulfill their contracts with the government.

Now there have to be some conditions for this:
Firstly that the work being done really is in the public interest. What is missing at the moment is any way of ensuring this. It is difficult to see how a marina is in the public interest in Freeport Texas, but it may be. There should be a clear decision procedure in the form of a public enquiry or local referendum that authorises, that validates, the public interest claim.

Secondly the compnsation has to be a fair market price for the property concerned. The government does not have a mandate to steal property, but the property owner does not have the right to steal from the taxpayer either. Valuing property is not easy, but it is done every day in the country so it is possible to establish a fair value.

The reaction to this ruling seems, to me as a classic liberal, to be over the top. Your individual right to property does not trump the right of the government to meet its obligations to the people. All that is required is that fair compensation is made.

The Freeport issue on the money being lent by the government to the private company is a seperate issue altogether. It has nothing to do with eminent domain. Only the compulsary purchases do.

They have to change 'fair-market-value' to fair market value plus 50% of the most recent property tax assessment value - thus, the system would regulate itself. The government would be able to buy the properties it really needed, but it wouldn't do it frivolously and the people being forced to sell would have something of a profit to show for pain and suffering caused...

They have to change 'fair-market-value' to fair market value plus 50% of the most recent property tax assessment value - thus, the system would regulate itself. The government would be able to buy the properties it really needed, but it wouldn't do it frivolously and the people being forced to sell would have something of a profit to show for pain and suffering caused...

Why? The money used to pay comes from the pocket of the taxpayer. No more than fair market value can be justified, otherwise the Government is stealing from you to pay some self centered jerk who just happens to own a critical piece of land.

Well, the decision to allow governments to profit by siezing property and giving it to others drew first blood in Texas.

That isn't what this decision was, darling. That decision was made over 100 years ago.

So, the developers and the local governments have wasted no time in exploiting this "narrowly defined act of political suicide".

Ouch, I think another chunk of the sky just hit me.

Although we don't have all the details, if they are as you say, the government cannot use this decision as precedent for that. As such, if the restaraunts aren't stupid and go ahead and sue, it is highly unlikely that this would get approved.

Firstly that the work being done really is in the public interest. What is missing at the moment is any way of ensuring this. It is difficult to see how a marina is in the public interest in Freeport Texas, but it may be. There should be a clear decision procedure in the form of a public enquiry or local referendum that authorises, that validates, the public interest claim.

This isn't right: It's not 'public interest' but public USE, in the constitutional wording. It's not enough to be in the interest of the public, it must be for public goods, and public goods alone: roads, schools, hospitals, etc. This is very clear in both the wording of the constitution, and in case law both in the US and in other countries. Building that marina may be in the interest of the public, but unless it is a PUBLIC MARINA, it goes against the constitution.

Public interest =/= public use

This isn't right: It's not 'public interest' but public USE, in the constitutional wording. It's not enough to be in the interest of the public, it must be for public goods, and public goods alone: roads, schools, hospitals, etc. This is very clear in both the wording of the constitution, and in case law both in the US and in other countries. Building that marina may be in the interest of the public, but unless it is a PUBLIC MARINA, it goes against the constitution.

Public interest =/= public use

You are picking at words here. The intent may have been that only public use could justify, if so then the marina would have to be of free public access. I am not an American, so I have not studied the constitution on this. I am British, where we tend to do things by thinking about them rather than following a prescribed code. As a result I thought about it, and posted my conclusions.

Public good, by the way is the same as public interest.

You are picking at words here. The intent may have been that only public use could justify, if so then the marina would have to be of free public access. I am not an American, so I have not studied the constitution on this. I am British, where we tend to do things by thinking about them rather than following a prescribed code. As a result I thought about it, and posted my conclusions.
Fair enough: however, in countries with codified constitutions, it is important to understand them as legal documents, not loose guidelines for policy. This is, after all, the point of a codified constitution.

Public good, by the way is the same as public interest.

No: bulldozing a school to build a Walmart may be in the public intest: increased tax revenue. However, that Walmart is certainly a private buisness, and thus not a public good. There is a clear difference.

No: bulldozing a school to build a Walmart may be in the public intest: increased tax revenue. However, that Walmart is certainly a private buisness, and thus not a public good. There is a clear difference.

You are confusing public interest (i.e. the interest of the general public) with government interest (i.e. increased tax revenue).

An example of public interest that is private business is that of stadium building. The local public wish to retain a sports franchise and it thereby becomes of public interest to build a stadium to this end, even though the stadium is to be privately owned. Walmart is highly unlikely to be of public interest.

You are confusing public interest (i.e. the interest of the general public) with government interest (i.e. increased tax revenue).

Traditionally they are viewed as the same thing; regardless, the general public does benefit, all other things constant, from increased government revenue.

An example of public interest that is private business is that of stadium building. The local public wish to retain a sports franchise and it thereby becomes of public interest to build a stadium to this end, even though the stadium is to be privately owned. Walmart is highly unlikely to be of public interest.
Unfortunately that is what this ruling will mean: local governments are not restricted in the buisness that benefit from the use of eminent domain.

Traditionally they are viewed as the same thing; regardless, the general public does benefit, all other things constant, from increased government revenue.

Just an aside, as it is not connected directly to the main debate. How does the public benefit from more of its wealth being placed in government hands? That simply makes no sense at all.

Just an aside, as it is not connected directly to the main debate. How does the public benefit from more of its wealth being placed in government hands? That simply makes no sense at all.
It's obvious that a walmart generates more revenue than a private residence. More tax revenue means more education/policing/etc. This is how it is understood in this kind of discussion anyways.

It's obvious that a walmart generates more revenue than a private residence. More tax revenue means more education/policing/etc. This is how it is understood in this kind of discussion anyways.

The revenue comes from the people. Why is this always overlooked? Walmart does not magically produce money. If there was no Walmart then people would be buying whatever they buy from Walmart elsewhere, thus providing the revenue anyway. Putting in a Walmart does not increase the total revenue as the revenue gained from other stores will drop.

In addition you did not answer how having more of their money in government hands was in the public interest. It is clearly in the government interes. Thus the two are not equivalent.

That isn't what this decision was, darling. That decision was made over 100 years ago.

This decision just made it easier for towns to profit by redistributing property. The whole point of the case is made in the first couple paragraphs of the opinion.

The NLDC intended the development plan to capitalize on the arrival of the Pfizer facility and the new commerce it was expected to attract. In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to "build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London," id., at 92, the plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park.

Now, you say this is just a re-affirmation of something that was already decided a hundred years ago. I"m not going argue precedents because the dissent in this case does it for me. They certainly see this decision as open season for developers and municipalities on property owners.

Although we don't have all the details, if they are as you say, the government cannot use this decision as precedent for that. As such, if the restaraunts aren't stupid and go ahead and sue, it is highly unlikely that this would get approved.
It costs a lot of money to keep a case moving through court. I don't know if a couple seafood processing plants have those kind of resources. That's the shame of this whole thing. The burden is now on the property owner to show why they shouldn't be condemned. And the burden also falls on the states to enforce the right to property that used to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

Unfortunately that is what this ruling will mean: local governments are not restricted in the buisness that benefit from the use of eminent domain.

If you bother to read the decision, you would be aware that this statement is horribly incorrect.

There was nothing at all in the statement that removed all restrictions on governments as to what busineses could benefit. In fact, it quite clearly stated that one of the reasons the case was admissable was the fact that there was no private entity stipulated in the plan.

Now, you say this is just a re-affirmation of something that was already decided a hundred years ago.

I didn't say this case is just a reaffirmation of precedent. I have already stated that I lean towards O'Connor's dissent.

However, the idea that the government could take from one private entity and give to another was decided in precedent.

It costs a lot of money to keep a case moving through court. I don't know if a couple seafood processing plants have those kind of resources.

Neither did the people who brought the last lawsuit, I'm sure. That's why there are groups who help these sorts of people out.

This is quite clearly in violation even of the currently discussed decision, as the recipient is already known.

If you bother to read the decision, you would be aware that this statement is horribly incorrect.

There was nothing at all in the statement that removed all restrictions on governments as to what busineses could benefit. In fact, it quite clearly stated that one of the reasons the case was admissable was the fact that there was no private entity stipulated in the plan.

Again, we assume the court made the correct decision. They have decided that this case falls within the public use defined by the Fifth Amendment. That isn't at all without doubt when you read the dissent. Next, they have opened the floodgates to takings. It looks to me that the only requirement on a local government is that they give property to a developer with a development plan that _might_ provide some financial benefit to the surrounding community.

I'm not sure why the NLDC doesn't qualify as a private entity. It is certainly a private non-profit group that has assisted the city for years. They certainly seem to be the ones that will benefit, as will the city.

from the opinion:

...It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case...


and the benefit to the community is not even required...

...Alternatively, petitioners maintain that for takings of this kind we should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule, however, would represent an even greater departure from our precedent...

Again, we assume the court made the correct decision.

I never made any such assumption. Perhaps you should stop putting words into my mouth.

I simply pointed out that, since this decision has been made, it is now precedent. However, it is not precedent for the types of cases you bring up - as it clearly states that, had the government had specific private entities in mind to benefit, the decision would have been different.

They have decided that this case falls within the public use defined by the Fifth Amendment. That isn't at all without doubt when you read the dissent.

Of course it isn't without doubt. And that doubt is another reason not to panic. There is no reason at all to believe that the next eminent domain case to reach the courts will be upheld.

It looks to me that the only requirement on a local government is that they give property to a developer with a development plan that _might_ provide some financial benefit to the surrounding community.

Then you didn't read the decision, as it explicitly stated that the saving grace of this case was that the government didn't know what developer the land would go to.

I'm not sure why the NLDC doesn't qualify as a private entity. It is certainly a private non-profit group that has assisted the city for years. They certainly seem to be the ones that will benefit, as will the city.

The NLDC was a committee specifically appointed to make suggestions on how to improve the fate of the city. It wouldn't even exist if the government had not brought it into being. Meanwhile, how will they personally benefit from any of this?

from the opinion:

Exactly my point!

and the benefit to the community is not even required...

Well, we can hardly jump in a time machine to the future to make sure the benefit occurs. What [i]is[/b] required is an explanation of why the benefit may be there.

"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it--well, so does any burglar. there is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
"I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life...Nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices--that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation--as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own--I would refuse, I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
--Ayn Rand Quote(Atlas Shrugged)