Eminent Domain. told you so

[3.4 slow to go]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html


subject line says it all. Soon you wont have any private property rights left.

[Fredless]

It's for the "common" good. ;)

[98Camaro3.8]

Saw that earlier today....almost puked. Can't wait to hear Boortz go off about it tomorrow.

[3.4 slow to go]

Amendment V
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 offense
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.

This is what they're trying claim as a loophole. THe right of government to take private property for the use of "other" private property.

some more

Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.


Since when does the Supreme Court pass legislation? And what recourse does Joe Public against it?

[FirebirdGT]

LOL

What's the problem? This is what the Republican conservatives wanted. Just wait until Bush gets another conservative judge on the Court!

[3.4 slow to go]

^^ sounds like an ACLU line, or a dream come true.

[Infernal]

Originally posted by FirebirdGT:
LOL

What's the problem? This is what the Republican conservatives wanted. Just wait until Bush gets another conservative judge on the Court!

No, this is not what the Republican conservatives wanted.

Uhmm, Breyer and Ginsburg, at the very least, voted for this. Last I knew they were not conservative Republicans. It was a bipartisan ruling from the supreme court. Hell, Sandra Day O'Connor unleashed in opposition to it. It was a 5-4 ruling.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rhinquist, all Republicans, were very much in opposition to the ruling.

But, go ahead and blame Bush directly, that's the "thing to do" now a days. :rolleyes:

[95Batmobile]

Originally posted by Infernal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by FirebirdGT:
LOL

What's the problem? This is what the Republican conservatives wanted. Just wait until Bush gets another conservative judge on the Court!

No, this is not what the Republican conservatives wanted.

Uhmm, Breyer and Ginsburg, at the very least, voted for this. Last I knew they were not conservative Republicans. It was a bipartisan ruling from the supreme court. Hell, Sandra Day O'Connor unleashed in opposition to it. It was a 5-4 ruling.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Rhinquist, all Republicans, were very much in opposition to the ruling.

But, go ahead and blame Bush directly, that's the "thing to do" now a days. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]word.

I think that ruling is terrible.

[zlexiss]

So now the question is this - what's their "just compensation"? Since the city is planning on getting all this new tax revenie and jobs from the land, if it was my house I'd be arguing for a share of this, way beyond the current property value, since my house and land is obviously not cose to the benefit the city wants to get out of it.

[Infernal]

That's the problem, zlexiss. Well, part of it anyway. "Just compensation" refers to the assessed value of the property being claimed under Eminent Domain, and guess who assesses the property? You guessed it, the city. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

[kinetic]

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood.

^^ clueless (uneducated) idiot

eminent domain is nothing new; pure economic principle ("society's best interest" &gt; your right to privacy/shelter) ...yeah, it's f#cked up.

that's why you'd be a little better off having a house/property out in a rural area, miles away from the city (though you'll never truly own it anyway, everyone pays property taxes).

"Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment."

yeah right, that's total bull****... homeowners are RARELY given market prices for their properties/homes, they always get less.

[ June 24, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: kinetic ]

[3.4 slow to go]

INterestign read

also, Neal Boortz, among others, has a nice rant on this.

There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now. Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights.

[Th3 RiCk]

I have no problem with the rulings. If it takes seizing property of a few to promote growth for the majority then I'm ok with it.

How many run down areas of your city could you see eminent domain helping out?

[3.4 slow to go]

who said it's just restricted to run down areas?

How long until ths is permanent?

another one for ya

[Infernal]

Originally posted by Th3 RiCk:
I have no problem with the rulings. If it takes seizing property of a few to promote growth for the majority then I'm ok with it.

How many run down areas of your city could you see eminent domain helping out?

Yeah, the only problem is that most of the time "growth" is going to be installing yet another a Walmart in your local neighborhood.

I have no problem with eminent domain property laws against condemned, abandoned, or derelict property. But I'll be damned if I can stand by and agree with allowing the government to take a citizen's home away to build a f'ing strip mall.

We don't need the government to control the "growth of the majority", and the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one.