NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Due to the latest Supreme Court decision regarding emininent Domain, the US Senate has risen up against this with a new bill that was just introduced into the Senate of the United States.

The name of the bill is Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005!

It was introduced by Senator Cornyn. It is now in the US Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is my esteem hope that this bill passes through Congress and be presented to the President of the United States for approval.

Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s1313is.txt.pdf)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Due to the latest Supreme Court decision regarding emininent Domain, the US Senate has risen up against this with a new bill that was just introduced into the Senate of the United States.

The name of the bill is Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005!

It was introduced by Senator Cornyn. It is now in the US Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is my esteem hope that this bill passes through Congress and be presented to the President of the United States for approval.

Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109IScM27::)Bad link, but ROCK ON!

Bad link, but ROCK ON!

Thanks for telling me it is a bad link. I fixed it to a pdf file and that works. I'll try to get a regular text of the bill that isn't pdf.

Did the US Supreme Court really rule that corporations and governments could just seize your property if the corporation could pay more? Isn't that against your Constitution?

Did the US Supreme Court really rule that corporations and governments could just seize your property if the corporation could pay more? Isn't that against your Constitution?

Basically yes they did rule that.

The people are getting screwed and now the Senate is Responding. Can't wait for this bill to pass.

Ah, now that is proper use of checks and balances. And because the only interpretation specifically limited appears to be takings soley for economic development, it doesn't even go against past court precedent.

Did the US Supreme Court really rule that corporations and governments could just seize your property if the corporation could pay more? Isn't that against your Constitution?
The supreme court ruled that a city can take your property and sell it to a corporation if it's in the public interest (generates more tax revenue). Apparently they decided it's not unconstitutional. I disagree. Hopefully this law will take care of that problem.

The supreme court ruled that a city can take your property and sell it to a corporation if it's in the public interest (generates more tax revenue). Apparently they decided it's not unconstitutional. I disagree. Hopefully this law will take care of that problem.

Hopefully it will. The Congress is going to stick it to the United States Supreme Court.

Did the US Supreme Court really rule that corporations and governments could just seize your property if the corporation could pay more? Isn't that against your Constitution?

No, they didn't

However the ruling that was made opened things up more than they had been interpreted before. It allowed the government to seize property that was not, in and of itself, being used in a harmful manner and transfer it to another private entity that they felt would use it "better".

The supreme court ruled that a city can take your property and sell it to a corporation if it's in the public interest (generates more tax revenue). Apparently they decided it's not unconstitutional. I disagree. Hopefully this law will take care of that problem.

This is incorrect as well. "More tax revenue" was not the listed purpose of the takings.

Hopefully it will. The Congress is going to stick it to the United States Supreme Court.

This doesn't really stick it to the Supreme Court. It says "Fine, if that's what the Constitution allows, then we are going to voluntarily limit ourselves some more."

It doesn't hurt the court in any way. It simply puts another law on the books so that this sort of takings will no longer be allowed.

This doesn't really stick it to the Supreme Court. It says "Fine, if that's what the Constitution allows, then we are going to voluntarily limit ourselves some more."

It doesn't hurt the court in any way. It simply puts another law on the books so that this sort of takings will no longer be allowed.

In other words, Congress is getting the last laugh and is screwing SCOTUS.

In other words, Congress is getting the last laugh and is screwing SCOTUS.

No, Congress is using the checks and balances given to them to correct what they see as a mistake in the law. Like I said, this doesn't screw SCOTUS - it doesn't harm them in any way. What it does is add a new law to the books. This way, the next time SCOTUS (or any court) gets a case like this, there is a clear federal law mandating that such takings are not allowed.

What you fail to understand is that the justices weren't sitting around going "MUAHAHAHAHAH! LOOKIE!! WE CAN INTERPRET THIS LAW IN A WAY THAT SCREWS PEOPLE OVER!!!" They simply felt that this was the correct interpretation of the current law. Most likely (and very evident in Kennedy's case) they didn't really like what they found that the law said. However, it is not the place of the court to make law, simply to interpret it.

Now that the law is different, the interpretation will be different as well. That is the way the law works. It doesn't "screw" the legislature or the courts.

No, Congress is using the checks and balances given to them to correct what they see as a mistake in the law. Like I said, this doesn't screw SCOTUS - it doesn't harm them in any way. What it does is add a new law to the books. This way, the next time SCOTUS (or any court) gets a case like this, there is a clear federal law mandating that such takings are not allowed.

The checks and balances is screwing SCOTUS! No matter how you try to spin it Dempublicents1, SCOTUS is getting raked over the coals by the people and by the members in Congress. Yes it is checks and balances and I wish that Congress infiltrated it more than they have but its being done now and I, for one, am glad that they are sticking it to the Supreme Court.

What you fail to understand is that the justices weren't sitting around going "MUAHAHAHAHAH! LOOKIE!! WE CAN INTERPRET THIS LAW IN A WAY THAT SCREWS PEOPLE OVER!!!" They simply felt that this was the correct interpretation of the current law. Most likely (and very evident in Kennedy's case) they didn't really like what they found that the law said. However, it is not the place of the court to make law, simply to interpret it.

I haven't failed to understand it. Stop talking to me like a kid doll. I am highly intelligent. Can't say the same for some people around here but I am highly intelligent. Scotus is getting worked over and that is all that counts.

Now that the law is different, the interpretation will be different as well. That is the way the law works. It doesn't "screw" the legislature or the courts.

This law hasn't been passed yet. Its in the Senate Judiciary Committee! Way to read.

In other words, Congress is getting the last laugh and is screwing SCOTUS.
Err...no. Congress is doing exactly what it should have done a long time ago, and that is create a clear, defined definition of what eminent domain is and how it will be used.


Remember, the government is the only power that can fully restrict the use of eniment domain, that's what the court says (it's legal to use the power, but that power can be restricted by the action of the congress). This bill mearly states that congress is waiving the right granted to it by the supreme court and encourages other states to do the same.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Due to the latest Supreme Court decision regarding emininent Domain, the US Senate has risen up against this with a new bill that was just introduced into the Senate of the United States.

The name of the bill is Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005!

It was introduced by Senator Cornyn. It is now in the US Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is my esteem hope that this bill passes through Congress and be presented to the President of the United States for approval.

Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s1313is.txt.pdf)unfortunatly, as an act/bill, the states can still choose to ignore it.

unfortunatly, as an act/bill, the states can still choose to ignore it.

The states won't have the balls to ignore it. Why? The people in those states would revolt against the state government just like they have revolted against the Supreme Court.

Way to go congress! Isn't the main purpose of government to secure life, liberty and property?

The states won't have the balls to ignore it. Why? The people in those states would revolt against the state government just like they have revolted against the Supreme Court.
Not exactly, if you can tone it down to reality I will explain what you mean to them.

What he means is that politicians like their cozy, relatively simple job that pay lots of money. To not support this would mean your damn hosed.

Good luck with this bill, American neighbours! Non illigitamus carborundum.

Who here has heard about the embarassing tidbit that one of the Supreme Court's assenting voices on this ruling is going to have his house siezed by a state so a developer can build a marina there?

Irony moves quickly these days. ;)

Yeah it was a horrible ruling, and I sided fully with the dissenting Justicies. This was a travesty of justice that needs to be quickly and permenantly amended. This threatens the very basis of ownership of property.

The states won't have the balls to ignore it. Why? The people in those states would revolt against the state government just like they have revolted against the Supreme Court.while that is the hope, it's not necessarily a guarentee.

It's a nice idea Corneliu, but it does not effect the states or the local goverments who would not use federal funds in such land transfers. A much better action would be for you to loby your state legistlature and demand they introduce a bill to cover this. The federal goverment rarely uses its ED powers unless it is constructing something large, like highways. States rarely use them either, again because they don't see property tax revenue all that much. It's your towns, cities, and counties you have to go after and the Congress has very little control over them.

But I'll be more than happy to support any state bills to limit ED.

Did the US Supreme Court really rule that corporations and governments could just seize your property if the corporation could pay more? Isn't that against your Constitution?

I would think so. Supreme court needs a backslap I think.

It's a nice idea Corneliu, but it does not effect the states or the local goverments who would not use federal funds in such land transfers. A much better action would be for you to loby your state legistlature and demand they introduce a bill to cover this. The federal goverment rarely uses its ED powers unless it is constructing something large, like highways. States rarely use them either, again because they don't see property tax revenue all that much. It's your towns, cities, and counties you have to go after and the Congress has very little control over them.

But I'll be more than happy to support any state bills to limit ED.


Some states already have bills that would stop this Supreme Court ruling. As an example the State of Washington has a very lengthy and detailed bill that defends private citizens rights with regards to Eminate Domain.

Some states already have bills that would stop this Supreme Court ruling. As an example the State of Washington has a very lengthy and detailed bill that defends private citizens rights with regards to Eminate Domain.
Yup. Nevada introduced and passed a bill limiting ED this past session, long before COTUS made its ruling, so they are out there. But the Congress can't do much about this unless it either passes an admentment (which is ratified by the states and sundry), or said ED is done with federal funding.

So we REALLY need to be bugging the hell out of our state reps and not the congresional ones.

Yes! Our lawmakers are doing something right for a change!!!!

The checks and balances is screwing SCOTUS! No matter how you try to spin it Dempublicents1, SCOTUS is getting raked over the coals by the people and by the members in Congress. Yes it is checks and balances and I wish that Congress infiltrated it more than they have but its being done now and I, for one, am glad that they are sticking it to the Supreme Court.



I haven't failed to understand it. Stop talking to me like a kid doll. I am highly intelligent. Can't say the same for some people around here but I am highly intelligent. Scotus is getting worked over and that is all that counts.



This law hasn't been passed yet. Its in the Senate Judiciary Committee! Way to read.

Why do you seem convinced that all the branches of the government are actively seeking ways to undermine one another's authority? This isn't a high school student council, kid, this is the national government.

Why do you seem convinced that all the branches of the government are actively seeking ways to undermine one another's authority? This isn't a high school student council, kid, this is the national government.

No kidding. I even served on my High School Student Council too. Nothing went on in mine so it really was a waste of time but that is another story.

As for this, no one wants one branch to have to much authority. Therefor, they all try to undercut eachother to make sure that no one branch is as powerful as the other.

Gotta love checks and balances. Especially when that Checks and balances screw a branch of government over. :D

No kidding. I even served on my High School Student Council too. Nothing went on in mine so it really was a waste of time but that is another story.

As for this, no one wants one branch to have to much authority. Therefor, they all try to undercut eachother to make sure that no one branch is as powerful as the other.

Gotta love checks and balances. Especially when that Checks and balances screw a branch of government over. :D

This SCOTUS ruling was basically saying to Congress, "Eminent domain laws are way, way too vague. Fix them." The SCOTUS wasn't searching to screw over as many of the regular people as they could, they were just interpreting a law as it was written, extremely poorly. Now it is Congress' turn to rewrite eminent domain laws more effectively.

This SCOTUS ruling was basically saying to Congress, "Eminent domain laws are way, way too vague. Fix them." The SCOTUS wasn't searching to screw over as many of the regular people as they could, they were just interpreting a law as it was written, extremely poorly. Now it is Congress' turn to rewrite eminent domain laws more effectively.

Not when they decide to undercut the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Not when they decide to undercut the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent Domain IS due process of law, however you may dislike it, so just what part of the 5th Amendment did the SCOTUS decide to undercut?

Eminent Domain IS due process of law, however you may dislike it, so just what part of the 5th Amendment did the SCOTUS decide to undercut?

But since when did the land become available for PRIVATE enterprises? It wasn't. It was ment only for Public services like schools, Hospitols, roads, railways, police and fire departments.

Not for shopping centers, hotels, office complexes.

Speaking of Hotels, that is what someone wants to do to Justice Souter's home. He wants to tear it down and build a hotel. Under this ruling, he can do just that. Guess what he plans to name it!

The Lost Freedom Hotel.

I dig the name :D

But since when did the land become available for PRIVATE enterprises? It wasn't. It was ment only for Public services like schools, Hospitols, roads, railways, police and fire departments.

Not for shopping centers, hotels, office complexes.

That's the problem. The law never said it was only for public services. It may have been intended to be only for public services, but it didn't specifically mention that. As I understand it, eminent domain can be used to develop property to "help" the community. And it can be reasonably argued that seizing low-income housing and developing a shopping mall that would bring untold amounts of tax revenue to the community is "helping" said community.

Maybe with this SCOTUS ruling, there will be a push TO define eminent domain as only usable for public projects. We'll see.

That's the problem. The law never said it was only for public services. It may have been intended to be only for public services, but it didn't specifically mention that. As I understand it, eminent domain can be used to develop property to "help" the community. And it can be reasonably argued that seizing low-income housing and developing a shopping mall that would bring untold amounts of tax revenue to the community is "helping" said community.

Maybe with this SCOTUS ruling, there will be a push TO define eminent domain as only usable for public projects. We'll see.

Hence the purpose of this thread! That is already in progress. I linked the bill on the first page that is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hence the purpose of this thread! That is already in progress. I linked the bill on the first page that is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I know, but you act as though the SCOTUS was deliberately trying to hurt as many people as they could. That isn't the case, and your eagerness to malign the SCOTUS as often as you can is, in this case, misplaced.

I know, but you act as though the SCOTUS was deliberately trying to hurt as many people as they could. That isn't the case, and your eagerness to malign the SCOTUS as often as you can is, in this case, misplaced.

Apparently, I"m not the only one railing on SCOTUS about this. Senator Cornyn is as well as some members of Congress and the American People are up in arms over this.

The checks and balances is screwing SCOTUS! No matter how you try to spin it Dempublicents1, SCOTUS is getting raked over the coals by the people and by the members in Congress. Yes it is checks and balances and I wish that Congress infiltrated it more than they have but its being done now and I, for one, am glad that they are sticking it to the Supreme Court.

You still haven't explained how you can "rake someone over the coals" or "stick it to them" without doing anything that hurts them or at all affects them.

I haven't failed to understand it. Stop talking to me like a kid doll. I am highly intelligent. Can't say the same for some people around here but I am highly intelligent. Scotus is getting worked over and that is all that counts.

Your entire premise is based on the idea that SCOTUS depends on this decision sticking around. Otherwise, there is no harm done to them and they aren't getting "screwed" or "worked over." This is exactly the way the law is supposed to work.

This law hasn't been passed yet. Its in the Senate Judiciary Committee! Way to read.

The part of the post to which you were replying to was a hypothetical in which the law had been passed. Way to read.

But since when did the land become available for PRIVATE enterprises? It wasn't. It was ment only for Public services like schools, Hospitols, roads, railways, police and fire departments.

Over 100 years ago.

And guess what! This bill wouldn't change that! All it would do is say that "public use" doesn't include ED used specifically for the purposes of economic development.

Speaking of Hotels, that is what someone wants to do to Justice Souter's home. He wants to tear it down and build a hotel. Under this ruling, he can do just that. Guess what he plans to name it!

Incorrect. This ruling will not allow that, if only because the person wanting to build the hotel is already known. The only way this would work is if the local government decided that the land should be used for hotels - with no particular hotel in mind.

Apparently, I"m not the only one railing on SCOTUS about this. Senator Cornyn is as well as some members of Congress and the American People are up in arms over this.

Most of them, however, are intelligent enough to say "I don't agree with this ruling. Let's do something to fix it."

You, on the other hand, say "OMFG!! THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!! LET'S IMPEACH JUSTICES BECAUSE WE DON'T AGREE WITH THEM!!!! OMFG!!!!"

Ladies and gents, welcome to how the government is supposed to work.

The idea that anyone is getting screwed is just plain juvenile. Members of SCOTUS still draw paychecks whether or not this new bill is passed.

As I recall, SCOTUS several times stated that the Executive and Legislative branches had no right to interfere in marital affairs -- was that
interpretation 'screwing over Congress and Bush'?

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Monday, June 27, 2005

Mr. Chip Meany
Code Enforcement Officer
Town of Weare, New Hampshire
Fax 603-529-4554


Dear Mr. Meany,

I am proposing to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare. I would like to know the process your town has for allowing such a development.

Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.

As I understand it your town has five people serving on the Board of Selectmen. Therefore, since it will require only three people to vote in favor of the use of eminent domain I am quite confident that this hotel development is a viable project. I am currently seeking investors and hotel plans from an architect. Please let me know the proper steps to follow to proceed in accordance with the law in your town.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC


Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

That's cute and all, but it is obvious that our dear Mr. Clements didn't bother to read the actual decision, which made it quite clear that a big part of the approval came from the fact that there was no particular developer in mind before ED was invoked. In other words, this wouldn't fly.

That's cute and all, but it is obvious that our dear Mr. Clements didn't bother to read the actual decision, which made it quite clear that a big part of the approval came from the fact that there was no particular developer in mind before ED was invoked. In other words, this wouldn't fly.

Ohhh I disagree. :D

I think it will fly and if it does, Souter is going to have one hell of a mess on his hands. I wouldn't put it past them to actually do it either. After all, it will bring in TAX REVENUE and it'll benefit the public by bringing in tourists to see the Lost Freedom Hotel and museum that is going in there too. :D

That's cute and all, but it is obvious that our dear Mr. Clements didn't bother to read the actual decision, which made it quite clear that a big part of the approval came from the fact that there was no particular developer in mind before ED was invoked. In other words, this wouldn't fly.
You're fighting a losing battle here--the polemicists have already dubbed this the "Wal-Mart can steal your home" ruling, despite the fact that it's anything but that. Make no mistake--the people pushing this from the background want to get rid of eminent domain completely, despite the fact that it's an important and necessary tool for government, and they just might be able to do it now.

Ohhh I disagree. :D

I think it will fly and if it does, Souter is going to have one hell of a mess on his hands. I wouldn't put it past them to actually do it either. After all, it will bring in TAX REVENUE and it'll benefit the public by bringing in tourists to see the Lost Freedom Hotel and museum that is going in there too. :D

That's because you haven't bothered to read the decision, and thus you don't know the fact that they made it very clear that a direct A to B transfer was not allowed under the 5th Amendment.

It isn't my fault that you form opinions when woefully uninformed.

That's because you haven't bothered to read the decision, and thus you don't know the fact that they made it very clear that a direct A to B transfer was not allowed under the 5th Amendment.

It isn't my fault that you form opinions when woefully uninformed.

I'm sorry but this actually fits into what the supreme court stated. Apparently this guy also understands that and therefor is proposing what he is proposing.

I'm sorry but this actually fits into what the supreme court stated. Apparently this guy also understands that and therefor is proposing what he is proposing.

It only fits in if you ignore all of the multiple times that this type of action was explicitly condemned, while action in which the private entity that would eventually get the land was not yet known was upheld.

Dem. Forget it. They have skim read the ruling and have decided that this is an abuse of government power. (I have had the same debate elsewhere.) Nothing you say will convince them of the actual facts as it is fixed (falsely) in their heads that this ruling by SCOTUS allows private firms to use eminent domain.

If you and I are wrong, then this bill will undo an error of justice, wheras if we are right, it will make no difference.

Dem. Forget it. They have skim read the ruling and have decided that this is an abuse of government power. (I have had the same debate elsewhere.) Nothing you say will convince them of the actual facts as it is fixed (falsely) in their heads that this ruling by SCOTUS allows private firms to use eminent domain.

I know, but I'm stubborn. =) At least those who don't know about it yet won't be completely misled by these people if we keep pointing out the actual decision.

If you and I are wrong, then this bill will undo an error of justice, wheras if we are right, it will make no difference.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do think that the ruling was in error. However, I think it was in error for the same reasons that O'Connor brings up, not for the reasons that the people screaming that the sky is falling do. This bill will correct that if it gets passed. Interestingly, Corneliu apparently hasn't actually read this bill either, since he seems to think it will prevent ED from being used in conjunction with private endeavors. It will not. It will simply keep ED from being used for the sole purpose of economic development.

The people are getting screwed and now the Senate is Responding. Can't wait for this bill to pass. The Congress is going to stick it to the United States Supreme Court. In other words, Congress is getting the last laugh and is screwing SCOTUS. The checks and balances is screwing SCOTUS! No matter how you try to spin it Dempublicents1, SCOTUS is getting raked over the coals by the people and by the members in Congress. Yes it is checks and balances and I wish that Congress infiltrated it more than they have but its being done now and I, for one, am glad that they are sticking it to the Supreme Court.

I haven't failed to understand it. Stop talking to me like a kid doll. I am highly intelligent. Can't say the same for some people around here but I am highly intelligent. Scotus is getting worked over and that is all that counts.The states won't have the balls to ignore it. Why? The people in those states would revolt against the state government just like they have revolted against the Supreme Court. Gotta love checks and balances. Especially when that Checks and balances screw a branch of government over. :DJust a suggestion: Chill a little bit. While your conduct is not yet near violating NationStates rules, I do believe that your behavior is rubbing people the wrong way and causing unnecessary friction between yourself and other NationStates players. It could cause problems down the line, problems that I'd have to pull out my Heavy Hammer of Mod to fix.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Trust me, you don't want the cure. :p

Way to read.Way to read.That will be enough.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
Your Local Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

...

This section of my post is unofficial.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do think that the ruling was in error. However, I think it was in error for the same reasons that O'Connor brings up, not for the reasons that the people screaming that the sky is falling do. This bill will correct that if it gets passed. Interestingly, Corneliu apparently hasn't actually read this bill either, since he seems to think it will prevent ED from being used in conjunction with private endeavors. It will not. It will simply keep ED from being used for the sole purpose of economic development.I'm confused. How can Eminent Domain be used in conjuction with private endeavors without being used solely for the purpose of economic development?

To rephrase the question: Are there private endeavors that involve economic development and something else? Or private endeavors that don't involve economic development at all?

The only examples I can think of are non-profit organizations. For example, tearing down someones home to build a shelter for abused women.

For reference, the part of this bill that actually mandates anything reads as follows:
Sec. 3. PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.--The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.
(b) PUBLIC USE.--In this ACT, the term "public use" shall not be construed to include economic development.
(c) APPLICATION.--This Act shall apply to--
(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and
(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.
--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

This section of my post is unofficial.

I'm confused. How can Eminent Domain be used in conjuction with private endeavors without being used solely for the purpose of economic development?

To rephrase the question: Are there private endeavors that involve economic development and something else? Or private endeavors that don't involve economic development at all?

The only examples I can think of are non-profit organizations. For example, tearing down someones home to build a shelter for abused women.

Yes, there are many. In the decision, several are cited as precedent.

For instance, the railroads were built as a result of ED, as have been other "common carriers". This was not for economic development, so much as progress of the entire area. These private entities are required to provide service to any citizen (so long as they can pay). However, they are not publicly owned.

Another is a case in DC. There was a neighboorhood that was completely blighted. It was a slum. Some 63% of the houses were completely beyond repair. The area was, I believe, a crime hotbed. Thus, the use of the land itself was harmful to the community. SCOTUS ruled it permissable to take the land through ED, condemn the area, and sell it to private entities to rebuild it. ((The neighboorhood is now quite nice, from what I understand))

Another is a case in Hawii. For a while, the vast majority of the land on several islands was consolidated in the hands of a few - basically allowing them to be slumlords. Their tenants couldn't hold them responsible for anything really, because anywhere they tried to move would likely belong to the same person. (Again, the use of the property was, in and of itself, harmful to the community) Thus, SCOTUS ruled it admissible to use ED to get the property from the owners and sell it to the current tenants, thus breaking up an oligopoly.

As O'Connor pointed out, the problem with this decision was not that it involved transfer of properties from one private entity to another. That has been in precedent for well over 100 years - maybe over 200. The problem was that there was nothing inherently wrong with the way the property was already being used. The government just thought that they had a "better" use for the property - economic development in that area.

I'm confused. How can Eminent Domain be used in conjuction with private endeavors without being used solely for the purpose of economic development?

To rephrase the question: Are there private endeavors that involve economic development and something else? Or private endeavors that don't involve economic development at all?

The only examples I can think of are non-profit organizations. For example, tearing down someones home to build a shelter for abused women.


Yes charities would be one example, but so would things like the provision of a hospital or schooling by private concerns. Additionally there is the purchase of land for infrastructure development (roads/rail/canals pylons, radio masts etc.) that could easily be of public use, but private projects. The economic development clause seems to be intended to rule out inner city reclamation projects etc.

Yes charities would be one example, but so would things like the provision of a hospital or schooling by private concerns. Additionally there is the purchase of land for infrastructure development (roads/rail/canals pylons, radio masts etc.) that could easily be of public use, but pricate. The economic development clause seems to be intended to rule out inner city reclamation projects etc.

But the thing about Rail, Roads, Hospitals, and Schools is that they are PUBLIC SERVICES and not Private ones.

Building a hotel, is Private. Building an office complex is PRIVATE!

But the thing about Rail, Roads, Hospitals, and Schools is that they are PUBLIC SERVICES and not Private ones.

Building a hotel, is Private. Building an office complex is PRIVATE!
Rail is most certainly not public...neither are hospitals (depends on the sort) or schools. Roads can also be private, there are a few bills in congress that will allow (republican sponsered) private corperations to use ED to get land to build private turnpikes.

But the thing about Rail, Roads, Hospitals, and Schools is that they are PUBLIC SERVICES and not Private ones.

Are you under the incredibly false impression that the railroads are owned by the government? I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Most are owned by PRIVATE entities.

And all hospitals are not owned by the government either - nor do all hospitals have to give attention to all of the public. Thus, some hospitals are PRIVATE entities.

As O'Connor pointed out, the problem with this decision was not that it involved transfer of properties from one private entity to another. That has been in precedent for well over 100 years - maybe over 200. The problem was that there was nothing inherently wrong with the way the property was already being used. The government just thought that they had a "better" use for the property - economic development in that area.

And that's really the crux of the argument. As I am understanding current eminent domain laws, there's nothing in the language of the law that prevents the government from making that judgement. Hopefully this ruling will motivate Congress to redefine eminent domain in a more appropriate manner.

What CSW and Dempublicents 1 said.

I will add the suggestion that you should try using some facts occasionally. Opinion is very nice, but on its own it is rather feeble.

Are you under the incredibly false impression that the railroads are owned by the government? I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Most are owned by PRIVATE entities.

But they fall under Public transportation. They maybe owned by private entities (except for Amtrak) but they also fall under the category of mass transit.

And all hospitals are not owned by the government either - nor do all hospitals have to give attention to all of the public. Thus, some hospitals are PRIVATE entities.

Some yes but not all. However, hospitals do fall under Public Services as do Police and Fire departments.

And that's really the crux of the argument. As I am understanding current eminent domain laws, there's nothing in the language of the law that prevents the government from making that judgement. Hopefully this ruling will motivate Congress to redefine eminent domain in a more appropriate manner.

I do too, and it looks like this bill is heading in the right direction, without making ED completely useless for those things it should be used for.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Due to the latest Supreme Court decision regarding emininent Domain, the US Senate has risen up against this with a new bill that was just introduced into the Senate of the United States.

The name of the bill is Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005!

It was introduced by Senator Cornyn. It is now in the US Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is my esteem hope that this bill passes through Congress and be presented to the President of the United States for approval.

Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s1313is.txt.pdf)

Finally they are doing something that is going to be worthwhile.

But the thing about Rail, Roads, Hospitals, and Schools is that they are PUBLIC SERVICES and not Private ones.

Building a hotel, is Private. Building an office complex is PRIVATE!
I believe that CSW and Dempublicents1 are correct. Most rails are privately owned. I'm not sure about the roads; I think most are publicly owned, but there are soe private roads. Some hospitals are private while some are public. Some schools are private while some are public.

Public use does not mean public/government ownership.

Some yes but not all. However, hospitals do fall under Public Services as do Police and Fire departments.They... may be "Public Services"; I think you are correct, but I'm not completely clear on the definition of "Public Services". However, they are private property.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

I believe that CSW and Dempublicents1 are correct. Most rails are privately owned. I'm not sure about the roads; I think most are publicly owned, but there are soe private roads. Some hospitals are private while some are public. Some schools are private while some are public.

Things about roads I've learned. There are Township roads, County Roads, State Roads, and Interstates. Most road networks are tied to Federal money.

Public use does not mean public/government ownership.

As far as I know, nowhere did I mention government ownership.

They... may be "Public Services"; I think you are correct, but I'm not completely clear on the definition of "Public Services". However, they are private property.

Public services basically means hospitals, Fire and police, Gas, electric, water, etc.

Public services basically means hospitals, Fire and police, Gas, electric, water, etc.

Public services, as I understand it, are any service that are paid for by tax dollars. Postal delivery, police, fire, some hospitals, public schools. Some hospitals, notably church-run hospitals, are private. Many schools, again notably church-run, are private. Gas, electric, water, all are privately run companies contracted by the government. Most roads are public; most railroads are private. Et cetera, et cetera.

I do too, and it looks like this bill is heading in the right direction, without making ED completely useless for those things it should be used for.

Exactly. This is just a case of someone attempting to exploit a loophole in the current law. Maybe now that it has had attention drawn to it, it can be fixed.

Public services, as I understand it, are any service that are paid for by tax dollars. Postal delivery, police, fire, some hospitals, public schools. Some hospitals, notably church-run hospitals, are private. Many schools, again notably church-run, are private. Gas, electric, water, all are privately run companies contracted by the government. Most roads are public; most railroads are private. Et cetera, et cetera.

I agree. There is a fine line here and I don't think anyone knows where that line is drawn. Its even more complicated now thanks to SCOTUS's ruling.

I agree. There is a fine line here and I don't think anyone knows where that line is drawn. Its even more complicated now thanks to SCOTUS's ruling.

No, it's not! What don't you understand about this? The SCOTUS didn't make up a new law. They looked at the law the way it was written and said, "This is what this means." The law was already making things more complicated, the SCOTUS just highlighted it for us. Now that the ambiguous law has been brought to the public's attention, our representatives in Congress can go about making the law clear and defined.

No, it's not! What don't you understand about this? The SCOTUS didn't make up a new law. They looked at the law the way it was written and said, "This is what this means." The law was already making things more complicated, the SCOTUS just highlighted it for us. Now that the ambiguous law has been brought to the public's attention, our representatives in Congress can go about making the law clear and defined.

Exactly.

The easy cases were decided a long time ago. Any cases now are going to be in a hazy, unsure area. 5 of the justices felt that this was on one side of the line, and 4 thought it was on the other. It's perfect timing for the people (through the legislature) to stand up and say "Ok, we see what the problem is. We want the line here."

By the way, can someone link me to the SCOTUS ruling involved? I'm not sure where to find the ruling, itself.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

By the way, can someone link me to the SCOTUS ruling involved? I'm not sure where to find the ruling, itself.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108

The supreme court ruled that a city can take your property and sell it to a corporation if it's in the public interest (generates more tax revenue). Apparently they decided it's not unconstitutional. I disagree. Hopefully this law will take care of that problem.
The closest thing we have here in Ireland is the Compulsory Purchase Order. That means that the government can force you to sell your land to them. It is usually used to buy land from farmers in order to build roads through what used to be part of their farm.

The closest thing we have here in Ireland is the Compulsory Purchase Order. That means that the government can force you to sell your land to them. It is usually used to buy land from farmers in order to build roads through what used to be part of their farm.

That's the type of thing that eminent domain is generally used for as well - and the meaning is the same - the government can force you to sell your land to them. It is supposed to be used for "public use", but that phrase can be interpreted in more than one way. It has also been used to allow private companies to build railroads, and to redo blighted neighborhoods. The most recent case allows it to take areas that are not blighted but that it feels could be put to better use for economic development.

That, many of us think, is a bit too broad. Thus, I would certainly support this bill.