Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Private Property Can be Seized
slew writes "CNN is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case where a local community seized private houses for commercial development (not public works) under the guise of eminent domain. Needless to say, the little guy loses to the commercial developer this case...
"
guess we need bush judges more than ever now
"Nothing to see here. Please move along."
Ack.
All your homes are belong to us.
This signature intentionally left blank.
And how does this have to do with my rights online? Seriousyl...isn't /. supposed to be a place for technology-related news? Yes, this is very disturbing, but it's way beyond the scope of slashdot.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, things like that are completely unacceptable! We can't sit back and allow people to take our land just to make an extra buck. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but clearly there is something very wrong with the supreme court if companies are allowed to bulldoze homes to build a condo.
This raises some questions about what the value of real estate will be in the future if companies are allowed to just take it. I don't know what kind of compensation the families received, but surely it isn't as much as they would have gotten otherwise. Needless to say, this is completely and utterly unfair...something has to be done.
So what the supreme court ruled was that you own your land, but the wealthy business pwns j00
Do you Gentoo!?
To all US /. readers who still believe that the USA has freedom.
0 8.pdf
Read this http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-1
Your government can now take your property for the "public good"
You are no longer safe in your own home!
The end has come and you only have yourself to blame.
What are you going to do?
Now I can finally plow down my two neighbors houses and install my cluster!!!!
But only I Rule Supreme?
If these walls could talk they'd probly still ignore me. --MF DOOM
along a long line of vanishing freedoms.
And it overturns the ruling from the early 90s involving Donald Trump trying to seize a woman's house to turn her land into a parking garage for a casino, I don't see how in the world this is classified as YRO.
Perhaps the ruling applies to online property as well - though the major companies generally try to invoke the DMCA for that (Microsoft vs. Mike Rowe, et cetera). That would make it relevant.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
This runs so counter to the concept of using eminent domain for the public good that I could scream. I guess there's not much chance Congress would consider limiting eminent domain to the more 'traditional' uses like roads, schools, etc. Sigh.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
The war against the rich and lower classes is over.
The rich have won.
http://almostsmart.com
Increasing the tax base is now a reason to seize someone's property. Nice.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
How is this techie again? Was it a PDA?
it was a 5-4 decision, which the conclusion being that the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.
They stated that this doesn't nothing to prevent states from legislating limits on eminent domain seizures by municipal government
Inconceivable!
As much as this ruling scares me, perhaps the commercial development would aid the community or in some way improve it, just as would a freeway or a public school, which normally allows for such seizure under eminent domain. However, I did not RTFA, so I don't know the details of the development, but regardless, it is very scary that so much power is available to a community. Well-connected businessmen must rejoice at the thought of this.
P.S. What's with all the YRO stories today?
A blog like any other.
I can see "Your Rights", but I'm missing the "Online".
Fuck Slashdot
I'm going to laugh and cry the first time someone's home of 50 years is torn down to put up a McDonalds...
Polluting the Internet since 2003...
http://percep
dark day. What this means is basically that ANY commercial organization can seize ANY private property if the city says it's good for "prosperity" (read business). This is not only morally wrong, but is also blatantly offensive to property owners everywhere.
In Soviet America, private property seizes local government.
This is really a sad day.
We only have the illusion of a free market in this country. From agricultural subsidies to tarrifs on trade to tax write offs for big corporations. And now we have this. You don't even own the things you own, unless you are rich, and then you own everything that poor people own, if you want it.
In Soviet Amerika, all your house are belong to the rich.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Now this only means that in the future this Supreme Court ruling can be used to, for example, decide that your domain name of microsoftsucks.com should be given to microsoft in order to promote a healthier public opinion of company and thereby improving our life style. Right.....
FTFA: "At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for 'public use.'"
Right, so it's in the constitution... that means you guys take it as gospel then?
How much do moving trucks to Canada cost these days?
I've posted other comments here about this, but here's the basic review:
The city government claims they seized the property for economic development, as part of a larger plan. Sure, the property is going to be turned over to a commercial developer, but it's "public use" of the land because of the larger economic development plan.
The state courts: Well, the city says their main reason for doing it is public use, not to benefit Pfizer, so it must be public use!
The supreme courts: We'll let the state courts worry about this. They said it's public use, so it probably is. Therefore, it's OK for the city to seize the land.
This is not the building of new roads, this is not the elimination of blight, this is a real estate development deal, and people are losing their houses over it. Does this frighten anybody but me?
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
So, just because you own your own business and the land it sits upon ... the local government can kick you off if it BELIEVES that another BUSINESS can generate more tax revenue/jobs or whatever.
And nice big FUCK YOU from the US Supreme Court.
So now you have to say 'yes' when that guy comes to purchase your land to build a mall, because it would be cheaper for them to pay off someone in the local government to announce the leftover lots as slated for destruction to 'improve the community'. Thats probably a bit more cynical than reality, but it makes you wonder what will happen to the houses just outside a growing city.
Touched By His Noodley Appendage.
Mr. Gustav: But my grandfather worked his whole life to make the house and property. You can't do that?
Mayor: I'm sorry, Mr. Gustav, but it's emminent domain. It's absolutely essential to the city's wellbeing that we tear down your house to make way for my swimming pool.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...it's not another news story from the BBC on /.
Also the governmet can fsck us over with Eminent Domain! Wikipedia
Our forefathers would have been marching in the streets with pitchforks and axes.
We're too busy checking our email, playing our consoles, reading Slashdot, and fighting over distros to care.
This is awful, and was already being severely abused. Walmart is by far one of the biggest offenders, but they won't be the last.
With this new law watch for cabins to be knocked down for ski resorts, and beach front homes to be leveled for new beach resorts. Watch neighborhoods be leveled for new shopping malls.
This is a major, major problem that is now going to get much worse.
And people thought Bush wouldn't accomplish anything in office...
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
I can go into local government - it's a small enough town, but with big enough land and value to businesses moving in - and become rich from the payoffs. And I'd better do it, too, before it's my house being sold out from under me.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
As much as I am skeptical that there is any fundamental moral right for private individuals to own land, given the ease with which local governments can be stacked with corrupt officials, this seems like a step in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, this sets an interesting precedent. If private individuals can be forced to sell their land to other private individuals, then conceivably a group of working class families could stack a local government with officials sympathetic to their cause and force shopping malls to sell their land to working class families at reasonable prices for private homes.
...
For the majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer
In dissent: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas
...go ahead America, keep getting fat, lazy, stupid, watch Survivor, listen to music, play X-Box, read People, watch Dr. Phil, diet, eat, play, spend, spend, spend, spend.
Don't read a book though. But do watch infotainment and hear about how a common household product might kill your children TOMORROW!
Nevermind the fact that
1.) The Supreme Court just declared private property is only private until the government says they have an idea how someone else could perhaps use it better?
2.) The Senate is about to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow prohibiting burning a piece of fabric if that fabric happens to have 3 certain colors (red, white, blue) and 3 certain shapes (long rectangles, large rectancles, stars) in a certain pattern.
Nevermind the demise of liberty. Make sure you see the #1 movie at the box office this weekend, or else you aren't a patriotic American.
When cities go after my domain name or phone number or online gaming properties, then it'll be "Your Rights Online".
This should've been in Politics, if anywhere.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is totalitarianism with a capitalist ideal.
It seems individuals don't really own anything that can't be taken away under even the most flimsy pretext.
If municipalities were able to raise revenue in traditional ways there wouldn't be as much pressure to use eminent domain to increase the tax base.
For the record, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in the dissent. The minority. The losers. The folks saying "no, the government doesn't have the right to take private land from some citizens on behalf of other private citizens as long as there are a few extra tax dollars to be picked up in the process".
If you want to argue party politics ("It's all Bush's fault, favoring Special Interests"), there are plenty of threads where you can do so and still be on-topic.
Unless you're so blinded by partisan politics that you consider O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas to be liberals (well, at least for today), this isn't one of those threads.
This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It's about libertarians vs. statists.
Historians in 100+ years may look back and say that this was the real beginning of the end of US society as we know it. Why? Virtually any sociologist or related scientist will tell you that the basis for a civilized society are strong property rights.
Personally, I'm disgusted by the ruling. We're going to see *massive*, third-world level corruption appearing in the headlines any time now. It'll be easy for developers to pay off the local gov't to kick people off of their land so that we can have yet another strip mall. This has got to be one of the worst rulings in the recent history of the Supreme Court.
I don't respond to AC's.
"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."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
I can't believe it. I agree with Scalia and Thomas. In other news, Hell froze over.
the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case where a local community siezed private houses for commercial development (not public works) under the guize of emminent domain.
No, what the Supreme Court ruled in this case is that what the city of New London is planning to do with the land IS a public use, in that it will create jobs and increase tax revenue, and therefore legal.
Of course, as a matter of opinion it may not be, but the Supreme court has not unilaterally declared that the government can seize your property for private use.
I always thought compensation is required when the government imposes eminent domain.
Thomas and Scalia in a disenting opinion.
What's the world coming to???
WTF were the other 5 bozos thinking??
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
What makes this so good is that for all the liberals on here who no doubt will blame the Bush administration in same way, the 5 majority judges are the liberal ones on the court...
I don't think this is a very good idea at all and might very well pave the way for more abuses of power on the part of a small number of wealthy, powerful individuals.
You can declare economic benefits from almost anything, but that doesn't mean you should be able to mow down someone's house and steal their land. Where have people's sense of property rights gone? A man's land should be his land, and no one should be able to take it away from him. Does anyone see the corruption and crony capitalism that can get involved with this?
Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Conner were the dissenters. They are classic strict constructionists, and this is one section of the Constitution which needs to be interpreted strictly.
I hope the Republicans can get off their behinds and pass legislation to eliminate this decision. A constitutional amendment is needed, I think.
We need to take a stand as a society and determine once and for all that the individual is just as important as the group.
If you come to take my home from me, I will devote my life to taking yours.
It doesn't matter if you're a lowly contractor or a police officer or a surveyor or a public official. You've declared yourself against me and that means you and I are at war.
Stock up on ammunition.
If you're surprised at this, then you obviously haven't been paying attention.
what the hell? are you people 12 or something?
..can be seized? After all, they are a form of property, and I'm sure Linus Torvalds could do a lot more good for the community with the Windows source code than Bill Gates.
Or will Legislators get smart and draft a Private Property amendment instead of worrying about flag burning?
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06
as this has nothing to do with my rights online
I'm sory Mr. Dent, but you can't fight city hall!
We are the Borg...
This is the constitution as it was written: Today, five supreme court justices, who are sworn to uphold that constitution, changed it to read: It is very difficult to overemphasize quite how evil this ruling is.
So, if we put together two recent Supreme Court rulings we get:
When it comes to land ownership, the local governments know better than the federal government how to treat your property.
When it comes to medical marijuana, the federal drug czar, and congress know better than the local doctor how to treat your illness.
In short:
We make decisions now, based on the way the wind is blowing, Judge O'Conners tarot readings and Justice Scalia's ever popular divining in the liver of a cow. There used to be this thing called the Constitution, but it has lots of big words and small letters.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
Before we turn this into a rich vs. poor, Bush's fault etc thing (which has already happened), RTFA. Scalia, Thomas and the other conservative justices opposed this. It was the liberal leaning justices that supported this decision.
Welcome to the Republican America.
do() || do_not();
I now claim this pool in the name of Petoria
honestly I guess I can now use my work as an excuse to take over the neiborhood and get the whole cable branch to myself
It's been a few hours since I read the announcement of the decision. I'm still stunned, and enraged.
Part of me wants to grab some weapons and... well, I can't finish that sentence because it's illegal to suggest doing such things to government officials. Besides, I don't think my fellow sheep would really revolt with me.
Part of me wants to laugh hysterically and start up the betting pool on who will end up being our dictator -- this is the next step on that road. Representive democracy is obviously dead.
I know writing Congresspeople is useless, as they only read the letters with money in them.
So, about the only thing I can think to do is economically boycott my own country. I'll buy food, guns and bullets, and precious metals, and encourage others to do the same. That's all... and wait for the end. I used to think the end would come after my lifetime, but now I think I'll see it after all.
The Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell University defines eminent domain like so:
Eminent Domain
The power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) defines the term very much the same way, but adds that the practice can be called compulsory purchase. (Apparently in Scots law this is also called compulsory surrender.) The aforementioned 5th Amendment item is called the Fifth Amendment Clause.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
For everyone who has much will be given more and will be abundantly supplied. But everyone who has little will be deprived even of what he has. Matthew 13:12
So the rich get richer and the poor, poorer; is this justice?
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
Reading the ruling, I find the dissents by O'Connor and Thomas much more perusasive. The ruling amounts to saying that, starting today, if others can use your property in a way that will be better for the general public, for example if:
- they will pay more taxes than you do now; or,
- the public will find the house they will build more aesthetically pleasing than yours is; or,
- they bribe the local politicians more than you can afford.
then the government can simply take away your property and give it to them.Of course you have to be "justly compensated". However, all this means is you will get back the "market value" of your property, i.e. what it is worth to a random person on the street. That could be very different from what it is worth to you, or even what it is worth to the developer who will get it and profit from it. Unlike normal economics, where the developers will have to pay based on what they can use the property for, the fair market value will depend on what you are using the property for today. And you personal enjoyment of living in a home you've owned for a long time doesn't factor into that.
Do you think Ms. Dery, who is 87 years old and lives in the house she was born in will be compensated for value of that? She only will be compensated for the value of the house assuming it was sold for profit.
A constitutional amendment to ban this "imminent domain" shit instead of an anti-flagburning amendment would fix this.
C:\>
Absolute fucking bullshit.
I'm running out of any will to even try anymore. I cannot even be sure I will have a home tomorrow?
And I suppose if they do, they probably don't even have to give you fair market value, just some predetermined amount that probably favors the rich fucker that wants to put his yuppie shit where my kids bedroom used to be? How's that work?
There is a fundamental tension in geopolitics between two competing principles: Self-determination vs territorial integrity. Recent geopolitical fashion, driven largely by the US Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, has subordinated self-determination to territorial integrity. Specifically, territorial boundaries may not be changed in service of self-determination of minority groups or even majority groups. Self-determination has been limited to mean the ability of residents of a territory, whatever their background, beliefs or preferences, to impose their will on other residents of that territory. To address the objection that this results in tyranny, a long, ambiguous and, in practice, selectively enforced list of "human rights" has been declared by the United Nations -- rights that are supposed to prevent tyranny. Part of the rhetoric for this sort of territorial integrity is the prevention of forced migrations.
By allowing eminent domain compensation to eject residents from their homes in service of other private uses, Kelo et al v. City of New London states that civil authorities may find it necessary to force the migration, with just compensation, of some of their private citizens, for the benefit of other private citizens, so long as the greater public good is served.
This SCOTUS decision takes the stance that territorial integrity can be violated for the "public good" even if the development thereby enabled is a private one. There is just one thing between this decision and a dramatic geopolitical revolution allowing people to create societies with others of like mind for their own living experiments:
The Sections 1981 and 1982 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870.
As Frank Salter points out in "On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration", mass migration has put all territories "in play" world-wide. Key to this has been a perverse notion, largely arising from the 1960s reinterpretation of Section 1982 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870. That reinterpretation, spread throughout the world via the US's dominant position during the era, is that the right of central governance to over-ride local governance and even individual, private freedom of association, extends to anything that might remind one of the institution of slavery. Such reminders are called "badges... of slavery". Never mind that when you violate private preferences for personal association you have created a new form of slavery. Apparently, the over-riding governmental interest since the 1960s has been to keep all rights, public and private, territorial and contractual (see Section 1981), "in play" between all ethnies worldwide.
When people realize how much property value is being destroyed by the misguided notion that all people everywhere should be forced to live the multicultural experiment of some misguided 60s idealists and greedy 21st century globalists -- multiculturalist supremacism -- it will become apparent that eminent domain compensation as a means of allowing new territorial boundaries to form is not the slippery slope to Armageddon but rather the path away from it, to true diversity and to the stars.
Seastead this.
I before E except after C... or in seized.
-=Lothsahn=-
After all, it has been legal to murder babies in utero for decades. This is just another case of the rights of the powerful trumping the rights of the helpless.
This is utterly pathetic. I cannot believe that the supreme court has this much power. Their job is to interpret the constitution not re-write it as they see fit whenever they want. an MSNBC poll showed that over 97% of people disagreed with the ruling. I think there's a time when people need to really step back and see how much their government isn't looking out for their needs/well being at all...
someone was paid off to pull this stunt... this should NEVER have even made it to the supreme court....
Here's a few links on this, but I pretty much pulled them at random, just google "Bush Arlington Eminent Domain":. html e s3/bush_and_eminent_domain.htm
http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/SweetheartDeal
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articl
Is when the judges start to accept small honorarium from people. And somehow, those donators dont have their land taken...
The door is now open.
emt 377 emt 4
privately held land property.
You're body is your own private property as well, and they certainly can't seize it for the "greater good".
At least yet...
sigh
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
Look at who voted on what-- the most conservative judges were against the corporate takeover of the private land. The liberal judges all voted in favor of the corporation. The Republicans here were the only ones that stood up for the middle class. Oh, and that city council in the first place? Democrats. You'll need to find a new scapegoat, the Republican aren't the demon this time.
Where's the rage against the democrat appointed justices that voted for this ruling? Whose looking out for the common man? Whose got more interest in "big business"? Hmmm....
What amazes me here is that the "liberal" wing of the court has ruled against the "little guy" single homeowner, and in favor of the wealthy corporations who can buy political influence easier than I can buy a loaf of bread. And the "conservative" wing is actually standing up for the little guy against the wealthy corporations who make millions in redevelopment. Who would'da thought?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
when every government "believed" that by tearing down every "old" building, paving over the downtown streets in small towns to make them pedestrian-friendly, would "revitalize" them. It turned them into ghost towns for over twenty years.
And, what is Market Value - it is very complicated, but it means at tax-time, you are valued the highest by their calculations, and when they want to buy, it is the lowest number they can come up with - it is *their* rules, remember.
The court has a 5-4 conservative balance, but the 5 that voted to allow this desecration of private property rights were the 4 moderate/liberals and one of the conservatives.
That should be a mindblower to those of you who feel that the liberals were the voice of reason on the Supreme Court. It turns out that neither the liberals nor the conservatives are looking out for the private citizen -- conservatives supported this one on the principle of property rights (but they supported extending copyright terms, too), and liberals showed a preference for the rights of governments over the rights of citizens.
Can we have story space on Slashdot seized to make way for real stories?
oh wait...
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
All the politicians are the same!
They take payoffs, and screew the little guy.
Didn't you see the movie, "The Distinguished Gentleman". It is a documentary on how Washington works.
Why don't you think the CAN-SPAM law was paased?
Fight Spammers!
What will we do? How about make alarmist posts on Slashdot?
Meanwhile, in reality, your private property has always been allowed to be siezed. This ruling merely states that you can't contest it.
But that wouldn't get the far-left liberals up in a frenzy of government-bashing on Slashdot, the most predictable website on the Internet.
Cue the +5 upmodded off-topic Bush-bashing comments! Any anti-liberal comments, meanwhile, will be ignored or modded down. Let's hear it for free speech and marketplace of ideas.
When they said, "...cold, dead fingers." Stealing someone's private, legally owned land to give to a corporation to increase corporate profits is the most fucked up shit ever.
I find this ruling very troubling.
A real estate agent has been trying to buy my home recently for use in a development project. (The church immediately behind my property has been sold to a group that intends to build a retirement community.)
His dealings with me were very suspicious (I knew nothing about the development project, and he did not volunteer that information - I had to find out about it myself).
We decided not to accept his offer, as we didn't really want to move and like our home just fine. We were willing to move, but for a price, one which is apparently higher than he wants to pay. Several times he has come to us with offers, each slightly higher than the last. He is also making somewhat threatening statements to our real estate agent regarding our property. (We ended up getting representation to protect our interests.) The statements were along the lines of 'if you don't sell, we will take your property anyway'. Attempting to scare us into selling, essentially.
But this ruling seems to suggest he MIGHT be able to get away with it. Not that I wouldn't fight tooth and nail. If forced, I may have to pull an Arthur Dent and lay in my driveway in my bathrobe.
But still, this is troubling news for property owners. I guess this means we don't really "own" the land after all. We own it until the government decides to take it away. Sounds like tyranny to me.
Very troubling.
~Dan
Increasing the tax base is now a reason to seize someone's property.
And that creates a new way around California's Proposition 13 (which keeps them from raising property taxes on your house and land until it sells). Watch for this:
1) Emminent domain the tax-capped house.
2) Sell it to another buyer. (Taxes now at new rate.)
3) Previous owner has to buy a different house. (Taxes now at new rate.)
Old owner is now paying the higher tax rate. Old property is now taxed at the higher tax rate.
Public good: Increased tax base.
Supremes say that's OK, it's a state matter.
Oops!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually, even this argument would not be good enough in some towns, since they have defined "blighted area" so broadly that almost any older home qualifies. For instance, some have legislated that a home without an attached garage is "blighted".
I guess in the United States they do too now.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I see the future
soon this will not be misspelled
imminent domain
I think the judges who voted for it should be given $1000 for their homes, be forcibly evicted, and their houses razed to put in Google's new offices. After all, it's what they said is the new American way.
I suggest you stop discussing your opinions here on Slashdot. Otherwise you might just realize that you are, in fact, discussing Your Rights Online.
If you don't like the article, don't read. However, I enjoy the article and don't like seeing 15 comments wasted to people like you bitching about how it "ISN'T ABOUT TEH ENTARWEB STEALING MY RIGHTS!"
In the words of poorly coded Slashdot message code:
"Move Along. Nothing for you to see here!"
-E
hrrm.
Yet another crushing blow to the rights of individuals and a victory for big business is inherent in this decision. Things are going to get much worse before they get better once Bush appoints a few more even more pro-big-business judges. In Detroit the corrupt government has been getting around this type of thing by seizing property for public works projects, evicting everyone from their homes, then canceling the projects and selling land to casino developers. Now it has been ruled legal. Great. More little old ladies can be kicked onto the street and their home bulldozed so the rich can get richer by sucking money from people desperate or gullible enough to gamble their money away.
Isn't it interesting how the constitution is now interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what is says? Apparently an office complex owned by a corporation is now "public use." I'm a member of the public. Does that mean I can walk in any time and hang out; or camp out for a few days while I'm in town maybe? How long will corporations be given more rights and fewer responsibilities than people, even though their stated purpose is (in most instances) wholly unethical and greedy? How much power and wealth will accumulate into the hands of the "elite" before the public notices that 3/4 of all people are living in perpetual debt to about 1% of the rest of the people and just how little upward mobility there really is in this country. Good PR, bread, and circuses will only last so long.
Thomas, Scalia and Renquist all dissented. It was the liberal/commies on the bench who were for the landgrabbing (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer).
Hence, to those who say, we need more judges put there by Bush, I'd say, yeah, probably. At least they'd vote like Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, etc.
Even a judge that votes like O'Connor (often swayed by the dark side) would be better: on this one, she was for the citizens.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
The interesting thing about this decision is that the "conservative" justices - ie, Thomas, Rhinquist, and Scalia - took a position contrary to their usual states rights and activism nonsense. This decision doesn't state that eminent domain is always acceptable, only that the locality has the discretion to make the decision. Conservatives will bitch and complain about this decision because it affects private property - which is basically all they really care about when you dissect their headonistic calculus. However, what the liberal justices said was exactly what conservatives demand justices say in all decisions: that the federal government will stay out of the matter, and that if you want change, you should act through your local legislatures. The minority was the activists, by conservative logic.
the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.
It's the court's job, and indeed a grave necessity, for them to rule on matters of constitutionality. Whether or not states set limits on eminent domain, the court must decide if those limits are constitutional.
By taking the position you describe, SCOTUS has nullified the entire concept of "public good." Since anything can now qualify as a public good and pass the constitutional test, it is exactly as if they redacted the words directly from the parchment.
Yes, this means that they effectively repealed a rather important portion of the 5th amendment by fiat.
Private property is now a fiction in the United States. "Property" is now redefined as something that you temporarily occupy under the consent and sufference of your local political majority.
This signals the beginning of a campaign of legal home invasion, as wealthy and politically-connected people will wield the government to transfer the property of others to themselves. Despotism, by any other name.
The end result will be familiar to anyone who'se lived in a radically unjust society: violence.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
In this instance, the judges say that local officials know best. (Never mind what the owners of the land think.)
The part that makes this really bad is that the Court isn't looking at the law and the Constitution, but at the circumstances. They're supposed to be judging the law, not making new laws as they did here.
A similar thing happened in the medical marijuana case. The judges said that they thought the "medical" thing was a sham, that this was all about people wanting a way around Federal drug laws. They had no legal basis for that finding, it was just what they thought about the issue. So they allowed the extension of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to include the doctor-patient relationship.
These decisions are symptomatic of an out of control Court.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
And when the bulldozers come to tear my house down, I'm going to lay down in front of them in my bathrobe.
So what if I have no rights on my own land - I could get a free trip accross the galaxy!
Hey, you've got to increase it somehow, since you also have the states, counties, and cities trying to give it all back to companies like Dell.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This problem started when we allowed the government to turn all landowners into renters with the property tax. We cannot own land in America. We can only rent it from the king. And the king can at any time revoke our rights and give it to someone who will pay more tribute. This leads to an incredible misbalance of power. Governments can create these arbitrary assessments and extract whatever they want from the landowning populace. These assessments will ALWAYS favor politically-connected individuals, businesses, strip malls, and heavy industry over family homeowners. And the benefits from these land grabs go to back the communities via politicians. The politicians hand out these benefits to developers and the developers fund their campaigns. The politicians will also be out front taking ALL the credit for the good services they provide with these funds and credit for the redevelopment like THEY paid for it. When it came from the taxpayers and the local landowners they stole from.
To fix this mess, we must restore property rights. We need states to pass constitutional amendments to end all recurring taxes on property and add a clear definition on what public use is for takings. Clearly, giving more funny money to politicians by letting them give land to the highest bidder should never be considered public use.
By bulldozing your house, and putting up a Walmart, it is a public use because they can collect sales tax -- see, public use.
Well, at least we can still speak against the government, or at least for today.
Fight Spammers!
Eminent Domain was recently used to sieze homes so college housing could be built for a private contractor. (not the school, but rather a gentlemen who had an agreement to build dormatory housing for students)
Worked out pretty good for him.
I'm sure it's being used elsewhere for personal gain.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
The Supreme Court today ruled that local governments may seize private property for corporate redevelopment. This overturns the long held rule that local governments can only seize private property (with compensation) for redevelopment into the public common.
In other words - not only are you not safe in your own home, but your home itself is no longer safe from government/corporate greed.
I think another few nails have been pounded into the coffin containing the ideal of the United States of America. An ideal where citizens rights come before government and long before corporate abilities. We the citizens of these United States of America have all but lost the war of our rights.
---
If Firefox is so damn good, then why can't I use copy-n-paste in it...
after all, if seized, it would be for the greater public good... (y'know, it's for the children)
This ain't your father's United States anymore.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sigh... This is a sad day in America...
All Your Property Are Belong To Wealthy Developers.
:-(
How much say do individuals have in defining "public good"? It's important to have your representatives' offices from local up to federal on speed dial on your phone.
I don't think it means what you think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Deleted
"1600 Pennsylvania Avenue bulldozed to make room for a minimart."
Afterall what do the occupants of said property contribute to the economy?
What happens when you allow the federal goverment to seize your income without representation? They seize even more.
Today, the Supreme Court once again invented new law, ignoring all previous precident, which allows the government to take your property in the name of goverment-imposed "economic development". This isn't even eminent domain. This is a private venture.
Let's take a look at the Judges who had opposed this ruling:
- Reagan appointee Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
- Reagan appointee Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
- Reagan appointee Justice Antonin Scalia
- Bush 41 appointee Justice Clarence Thomas
And those who ruled for it:
- Ford appointee John Paul Stevens
- Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy
- Bush 41 appointee Justice David H. Souter
- Clinton appointee Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- Clinton appointee Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Take a guess at what party is the face of the new Socialist movement.
I am MuchTall
Locke: Life, Liberty, Property ... dang, caught on a technicality... *sigh*
Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, *PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS*
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
Are they going to reimburse the people for this? TFA didn't mention anything about money.
You can still march down the street with pitchforks and axes since you don't have far to go now. You only have to get as far as your local government office and burn it down the first time they try this in your own community.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's,
Time for a constitutional admendment to stop this blatent abuse of the right's of the citizens.
Personally I don't like it that someone has to give up their home for a bridge or something beneficial to the public as a whole, but I can live with it.
But, when somebody with a large enough wallet and the right "connections" can come along and take my property for a strip mall, now that's a totally different matter.
That's gotta be stopped.
Just think of all the abuses this can bring up.
And for those who think it's just physical property you better think again. The law makes is color-blind when it comes to stuff like this.
It's a very slippery slope that could easily lead to the acquisition of intellectual property without the owners consent.
Just think of all those GPLed projects out there that the CIA or FBI would be willing to take and hand over to Microsoft.
Or, in a different light, all those GPLed properties that the RIAA would like to see disappear. A few greenbacks carefully placed into the right legislators hands could easily make this type of scenario happen.
The whole thing stinks to high heavens and I really believe that as government entities ramp up their abuse of their newly minted right of seizure that the citizenary are going to revolt.
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
We have a situation where a privately held parking area (near an airport) is being seized by the city because they want to 'maximize tax revenue'. Two problems here:
1) Maybe if their own on-site parking were cheaper (or at least offered curbside-type service), they COULD compete fairly.
2) There is PLENTY of tax revenue being generated by the property - but because of the weird way PA tax works, a lot of that goes to schools. So it's not so much a tax revenue increase as it is a shift from the local school to the state.
This is plain wrong folks. Gov't should not be in the business of putting people out of business. I understand what the Supremes are saying (it's in the state's hands), but to me, they could've done a better job. Think about this: Places like churches or privately held public areas (like some parks) could simply be seized and developed with no input and no real way to appeal.
PA needs the referrendum NOW! This sort of shit goes on all the time and no matter who's in office (R) or (D), it doesn't matter.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I'd like to see them try and take my property! =)
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Dear Anonymous Coward,
Our records indicate that you have not purchased a new car in 5 years. We feel that this is against public interest. Therefore, we have decided to seize your car so you can help boost the economy by purchasing a new one. Your old car will be donated to the 2016 presidential inaugural demolishion derby. Thank you for your cooperation.
Uncle Sam
Let's say the fair market value of a property is $150K under normal circumstances.
Now MegaCondoCorp wants to raize your whole block and put in a multi-mega dollar development... raising property values tremendously. Let's say that a lot right next to the new develpment will be worth $500K AFTER the new "improvements".
What is the fair value of the condemed property? $150K, $500K, something in between?
Unfortunately for the property owner it can't be "priceless" any longer.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I must say that this is the first time I've agreed with any opinion issued by the Sith Oligarchy of Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas. Their über-conservative bias usually has me screaming foul. It's also highly unusual that they should be joined in this by Sandra Day O'Connor. The thought of any local governement being able to take one's home to make way for private development turns my stomach. The opportunity for this ruling to be abused by private entities with deep pockets is going to far outweigh any potential benefit to the community. Just wait and see. Wal-Mart is cackling with glee over this one.
They'll get reimbursed at the fair market value before the project was announced, probably something close to the previous-year's tax appraisal.
What they wanted was either to stay in their homes, or to make the developer to pay what he would have paid had their been no eminent domain - i.e. whatever the homeowners could squeeze out of him.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...that will cause victim homeowners to start shooting public officials who take their homes to be handed over to private interests.
This is Pfizer, the maker of viagra!
The city's actions couldn't make it more clear:
"Personal property", i.e. your house, has nothing to do with "Corporate property", i.e. strip-mines, clear-cuts, multiplexes, shopping malls, archives of intellectual property, privatized railways, privatized power companies, etc.
People confuse them both as "private property". We're confused because large corporations want us to confuse the two.
The next time some corporation protests that their "private property" must be protected, on principle, call them on it! Your private property isn't protected, unless you're powerful!
Most corporate property used to belong to everyone, in commons, before it was stolen, subsidized, extracted, and polluted. We pay the bills to clean the mess up. Yet we can't keep our houses!
I went to college in New London, and it's mostly a shithole. Run down, with parts approaching ghetto.
But still... this is a Bad Thing. Don't like it at all.
In Soviet USA, all your homes are belong to developers!
step 1: let company patent X
step 2: seize patent for the public good and pay back twice the patent fees
step 3: repeat
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
There's fun to be had by everyone...
Liberal / Conservative
If you like playing this game. It doesn't matter which "team" you root for. We the people lose...
SCOTUS' job is to review state laws for constitutionality.
If they refuse to apply any standard for "public good," then it is exactly the same as if they had erased the words right off the parchment.
States can make all the laws they want. If SCOTUS fails to follow the constitution in reviewing them, they have, as they did in this case, rewritten the constitution by fiat.
Your knee doesn't jerk when someone whacks it? You will now never own real property in your life, unless you emigrate. All you can ever do is occupy some space, under the perpetual consent of the local majority government.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Welcome Our New Wal-Mart Overlords
two words.... american indians...
For /.'ers who feel outraged that this kind of thing, now is the time to do something about it.
Do what all the other special interest groups do when things don't go their way.
Legislate!
Get a law passed better defining and thereby denying this kind of action. It's what every group does.
Start working the system! You won't be the first person identified as a special interest, so wear the label with pride and get busy.
Note to self:
TODO Kill my Xbox, gameboy, cable, satellite, wide-screen, projector, dvd, TIVO AND TV.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I suggest a bunch of us get together (a community) and decide to put up a nature preserve (a private venture) and seek emminent domain right where the chief justices of the supreme court happen to live. And while we're at it, I'm sure there's a spot in crawford texas that could use a parking lot too.
I rather like this law. When you think about it, it can work BOTH ways.
The leftists are the ones most given to seizing private property and giving it to someone else. They've been doing it for years with the tax and welfare scam, and this is no different than the sort of things that occur in countries where socialists and communists seize power. First thing, eliminate the right to private property and seize it all under a thin veneer of "common good".
I am totally unsurprised at who voted against this. This was pure and simple an attack on the lowest economic rung of property owners not by big business which was sitting on the far side of the whole thing, but THE STATE, which waved the "public good" flag around. New London isn't a lot different from the CT city I live in and believe me, it is the most left wing of the politicians who see no problem with seizing private property for their own whims and interests. They believe that if you aren't wealthy enough to afford the legal team to keep your property, you shouldn't have it and go live in the projects on welfare. The wealthier can keep theirs until the revolution when it gets inevitably seized.
I would also note that NONE of the leftist politicians in town live ANYWHERE NEAR the neighborhoods they claim to represent. They live in the affluent southern section where the police concentrate their presence and harass people who don't look like they should be there, keeping "those other people" up in the north end.
And where do they want to harass struggling homeowners on the lower economic end? Whose homes do they try to condemn? Where do they want to demolish everything and put up retail stores? Our neighborhood, not theirs.
Whoever wins, we lose. Fight the lie people. Socialism is bunk. The Constitution is being assaulted heavily and worst by the people who claim the loudest and longest to be protectors of civil rights. Whoever you vote for, vote FREEDOM FIRST.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
And to think its mostly liberal judges who think this decidion is OK almost makes me ashamed to be a liberal.
The Grokster ruling, expected as early as this Monday, according to the New York Times, could also be an absolutely huge precedent setter in that if it overturns the appleals courts ruling, it could send a chilling effect throught the internet.
Freedom isn't lost in an avalanche (until the last minute where it is far too late), but chipped away in decisions like this one. This particluar decision is proof positive that Liberals and Conservatives are both willing to sell your Consitutional Freedoms away, depending on the cause, one ruling and law at a time.
I shake my head in sadness over this ruling. Yet, despite how things are turning out, I still stubbornly vote in the hope that the taste for Liberty will previal.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Stevens - Liberal
Ginsburg - Liberal
Breyer - Liberal
Souter - Liberal
O'Connor - Waffler
Kennedy - Waffler
Rehnquist - Conservative
Thomas - Conservative
Scalia - Conservative
Generally speaking, of course. YMMV on particular issues.
I'm on a a major street in a secondary market with a few houses on one side and the other. Commercial developers have tried to come in here and there and get us to sell out. (The latest was a Wal*Mart store which was successfully fended off. Well, that, followed by this corporate Real Estate VP who wanted to move next door.)
Now, with this ruling, a developer just has to convince the city that all the properties along a major road will best serving the public as commercial property. Actually, I don't think it'd be that tough. Congratulations! You've given the developer the right to evict those troublesome homeowners that stand in the way of their profits.
As heard from Rush Limbaugh and one of his callers, the majority opinion basically said that case law trumps the Constitution. In other words, if too many people let a freedom go astray, that freedom becomes forever lost.
I don't know why they keep shooting holes in the Constitution, it's already dead. Might as well bury it and stop ignoring our chains.
I particularly talk about AIDS drugs.
The US government is short of starting a war when some african nation is denying patents to a US company for the public good(at least, of their country), but it is ok to seize the property of lone US citizens and give it to corporations?
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
A lot of the posts seem to imply that conservative justices are to blame here. If anything, the *liberal* and moderate justices are the majority opinion in this case, not the other way around.
If you find yourself generally liberal, especially on social issues, but also strongly respect private property rights and such, you should really look at the libertarians (it was a group of libertarian lawyers ( http://www.ij.org/ ), representing the people whose homes are being seized).
lp.org is a decent place to start for that, and there are several "libertarian faqs" out there. ( http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html ) is one.
A liberal refutation (that I *personally* think is largely strawman attacks, as the arguments he debunks are neither convincing nor the ones that I had heard of) is the "Non libertarian FAQ", one mirror at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html .
If you broaden the scope of the liberal agenda to that of the right you will find that most conservatives want more individual rights while liberals tend to expand the concept of governmental rights. This decision fits in those concepts by the ruling from the Justices today.
Think back to the 80's slogan by Ronald Reagan: rugged individualism. Conservatives want more rights vested lower and lower; contrast this with the more pure Federalism model most liberals want. Think state's rights versus federal rights. Once you go on this line of thinking you can easy see how the more conservative Justices went against this.
As some have posted here what the ruling does not mean that anyone can take your land anytime. The ruling essentially gives the benefit of the doubt to the city in that a public use is not solely defined by a public project. The facts of this case were that the city stated they needed this project in order to essentially survive and thrive as an economic reality. Therefore by encouraging private development through seizure they were continuing the public use by avoiding dire circumstances. Without debating the merits of those claims the Supreme Court said this falls under public use and left the decision up to the elected officials to further define public use.
That being said, I would not not come to this conclusion in that I don't believe allowing public officials to determine this is the best method in that it leaves open too much possibility of corruption. Living outside of Philadelphia and in Pennsylvania I hear almost on a weekly basis a story of someone paying (i.e., donating) money to an official for some favor. Whether it be the Mayor of Philadelphia (in which several closely associated people are on trial for corruption) or from the state Legislature the process is clearly tainted.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
I guess when we say "there goes the neighborhood" it really means there goes the neighborhood because it's going to be gone... truly a sad day. And for what? Hotels? Office Space? How is that for public use? Those people they uprooted can't necessarily afford to use the office space or the hotel unless they have a means pay for the nightly stays or the monthly lease. If it was deemed for a public park, then that I can understand. Commercial interests? I think not. That's some crazy BS.
That was a cool-headed, nuanced and unbiased interpretation of a political story.
I think you must have the wrong website.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
They just ruled that "private means public." The US Constitution explicitly forbids the use of eminent domain as a means to redistribute real-estate wealth. All eminent domain must be for a public use, ie a road, police state, military base, etc.
Those who minimize or even support this ruling have basically said that making room for wal-mart over the small businessman is the public good since wal-mart will always bring in more tax revenues than a small retailer. Congradulations, lefties, you've just formally subordinated one of the most basic human rights to the good of big corporations. How do you like them Apples?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Even if they didn't tax land, they'd find some other way to tax you to death.
Remember, the theoretical difference between a Republic and a Kingdom is that taxes go to a "community chest" not to the King's back pocket.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the taxes wind up in the back pockets of the politically connected, not matter what the form of government or what the era you live in.
As for eminent domain, that goes for almost any tangible property, not just land. Just be happy the "king" has to pay a "fair price" for it when he turns it into the new city hall or gives it to a developer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's not often that I find myself agreeing with the opinions of Scalia, but the ruling of the majority seems to clearly fly in the face of our constitution.
To quote an excerpt from our fifth amendment, as taken from wikisource.org:
No person shall be [...] deprived of [...] property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The key point being that eminent domain is only supposed to be invoked when the land is needed for public use, which it is clearly not in this case, or when by due process of law, which is not satisfied by saying "local government knows best". Taking the land for private use and then arguing that this act indirectly benefits the public sounds to me like a clear run around the protections our founding fathers intended to bestow.
Compare this ruling to the Bush v. Gore ruling.
I am MuchTall
That's a bit like saying that French people don't know how to speak French. The meaning of the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court judges interpret it to mean. By definition they can't be wrong.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
This is just so fucking absurd. Since when was 'public good' equated to tax dollars? Unfuckingbelievable.
The government no longer represents 'the people'.
Therefore its invalid and all elected officials should be re-called immediately.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To sum up The Free Article, conservative judges dissented which, if anything shows that money works on all parties. The ruling allows local governments to take away land from private property owners and give it to teh corporations if they find it to be for the good of their pockets
I bought my house in 1992 in bay area when the price was a third of what is now. Govt is asking me to vacate the house because the new owner will pay lot more property tax than I am paying now. It is being taken for higher tax collection. Also the new guy is rich and will not need public school and will save the county money. Looks like supreme court justified the city on this.
Strangely enough, this SCOTUS ruling could be a potential boon for local democracy and activism in the United States.
If indeed the ramifications are not "random", as Justice O'Connor put it (and I think she's right), then what we'll see are pitched local battles taking place across the entire nation, with commercial developers vs., well, the people. This may finally be the tipping point that wakes everyone up and sparks a vast new wave of civic activism. After all, the "local authorities" are democratically elected, and if they go off the deep end with seizing private property for pure commercial interests, it won't be long before people get out their pitchforks, so to speak.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
"Judge O'Conners tarot readings and Justice Scalia's ever popular divining in the liver of a cow."
Apparently 1+1 = 6 for you?
O'Conners and Scalia were the ones ignored in this decision.
Arthur lost his house too. I'd suggest being a Charlton Heston holding a legally-owned repeating rifle and defending your property would send a more effective message.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It is my observation that this ruling is indicitive of the two different views on government. One of them is a view held by (in my observation) most democrats and a number of republicans: government exists to bring about the common good. The other is a view held by some republicans, some democrats, and ALL libertarians: The government exists to ensure the existence of private property. These two values came into conflict with this court ruling, and the court decided that 'common good' outweights 'private property.' Don't act surprised. All of you people who support high taxes on the rich and incomine redistribution, you can kindly shut the fuck up about this ruling because it's the logical extension of policies you support. If the government can take money from the rich in order to serve the commmon good, it's no grand leap to say that the goverment can take private property from the poor, and give it to a buisness developer, in the name of the 'common good.'
My blog
I'm rather interested in where the 'tipping point' is going to be.
Several people have pointed out (correctly) that the decision is not "It's OK to grab land," but rather "The local government should decide when it is OK to grab, not the Federal Government."
My question is this - who do you turn to when your local government makes the wrong decision? The Feds basically just said "Not our problem."
By the time you vote someone out, the damage is done. You really, really need to be careful who you vote in now - and, as (again) people have pointed out, local governments are more susceptible to pressure and such from companies than the Federal Government is.
And you are full of Crap, provided you even RTFA. These the precisely the kinds of judges Bush doesn't appoint that pulled this one off today. Next time put brain in gear before engaging keyboard.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I find it ironic, and shocking that a country which prides itself as being on of the most open free market economies in the world have it's highest court render such an appalling ruling.
If a home owner wishes to hold out for more money that is their prerogative, if the developer feels they are being treated unfairly they have the right to build some where else. Period.
This ruling completely short circuits the above process in favor of some undefined form of "compensation", which is highly subjective and open to outside influence (e.g. corruption).
I fear this is a case of judges living in glass houses without considering real-life political (corruption) and human weaknesses (greed). In short, they have put too much stock in in "local officials".
I only hope that there is such disgust and outrage at this ruling that the senate and congress will take notice and enact a law which will negate this ruling.
Rich...
Doesn't suprise me one bit. You are finally seeing the light of your political party. They have been taking property in the form of high taxes for years. The Libs believe that the Gov't owns everything and are gracious enough to "allow" you to keep 40% of your income for being a good subject.
If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
Repeat after me: "I" before "E" except after "C". Oh wait, that doesn't apply. However, in the age of endless spelling tools, you would think that a major site like slashdot could get their postings spellchecked.
Then again, some people also hope that they might check for duplicates.
Yes, I know. Offtopic, troll, and flamebait.
Free Ipod here
is here
Vote for Pedro
If the government (or a big rich company) can delcare that something is for the good of the public, can they not just as easily aquire the "Internet", ie: its underlying infrastructure consisting of fiber/copper?
I am not really sure where this idea could lead, but it doesn't seem that far fetched either.
Sig Return: 204 No Content
I'm trying to point out that 'compromise' in this country is made in the interest of the rich more often than of the poor, and that the myth is that we have (and should have) a free market. The ones who squawk the loudest about the free market are usually the ones who want it the least.
Oh, and thanks for implying that I am a school child, have no grasp of the real world, and need to relax. Could you have crammed any more underhanded ad-hominem attacks in that short of a post? I think not.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If you read the CNN article, and took it as being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then you're likely to be mad as hell over this ruling. I sure was after reading CNN's article.
But then I thought, "This is so completely irrational, that there has got to be more to it." And there is.
If you look deeper, you'll find that the justices debated a lot of issues that the CNN article does not even mention. What this case really hinged on is the fact that New London is apparently experiencing some very hard economic times right now. Apparently, a large Naval base in the city was closed and thousands of jobs were lost. And apparently this particular neighborhood is quite a bit more industrial and depressed than the typical New London neighborhood.
One of the arguments made by the property owners was that eminent domain could only be used for economic development in "blighted" areas. At least one of the justices retorted something to the effect of, "But isn't it likely that this area of New London will become blighted in just a few years from now if nothing is done to imrove the economy?"
They also discussed the possibility that the city might be attempting to act in bad faith: that they were doing a favor for corporate interests without regard for the general wellfare of the city's citizens. But they found no evidence of such bad faith. It appeared to the justices that the city had a legitimate goal of improving the local economy in order to prevent the situation from getting far worse.
So, it would appear that there is some rationality behind this decision after all. Most of the information I gathered came from newspaper articles and the like that have been following the case. Last I checked, the actual opinion itself was not available on SCOTUS's website yet. To really judge for yourself, you'd probably need to read the opinion, because this really is an area where the line between "public use" and "private interest" is very blurry (turning around a depressed economy).
The CNN article left out some very important details, which, if included, might change the way a lot of people percieve this decision. Pretty powerful stuff, the media.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
"Their job is to interpret the constitution not re-write it as they see fit whenever they want."
The difference is onlyone of degree, and where the line falls is one of interpretation.
If a case comes before them, they can even violate the laws of science and declare that the tomato is not a fruit.
When it comes to unpopular political decisions, the Supreme Court is subject to several checks and balances:
1) action by Congress, including expanding the size of the court, reducing "fringe benefits" like an air-conditioned office, staffers, etc, and trumped-up impeachment charges a la President Andrew Johnson.
2) political assassination - definately NOT recommended - you do this you will likely be caught and executed
3) revolution - also NOT recommended, if you fail you will likely get caught and executed
There are also informal things, like not getting invitations to parties, being kicked out of country clubs, and other means that well-connected people can take to "punish" judges for their opinions.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In the same way that "Encyclopedia Britannica Online" only has entries relating to the internet. There's a million other examples: "Disney Online", "PBS Online", "Discovery Online", etc.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Broadcast, that is. No TV?
People may wake up.
Revolution is
people pushed to their limit.
Not even close yet.
It means the same as 'is', just underlined
The place where this is happening. The best that I can offer is my outrage at this, as I cannot even fathom this comming into play ...
The following is a list of email addresses that you may find useful:
City Manager - Richard Brown rbrown@ci.new-london.ct.us
City Council:
Mayor
Jane L. Glover 860-442-6296
kente219@aol.com
Deputy Mayor
William S. Morse 860-442-0233
billmorse1956@hotmail.com
Councilor
Jason Catala 860-447-3848
Jason_CatalaBOE@yahoo.com
Councilor
Margaret Mary Curtin 860-443-0373
pegcurtin@snet.net
Councilor
Gerard J. Gaynor 860-443-6346
Gjgdeacon@aol.com
Councilor
Robert Pero 860-447-2723
pero6_98@yahoo.com
Councilor
Elizabeth Sabilia 860-437-8031
Sabilia@sdwllc.com
I would suggest everyone writing any of the above, and let them know how displeased you are with thier actions.
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
I forsee new websites being launched. Like "Where Not to Move" detailing the laws of diffrent states so people know where they can move to where their propery really is theirs and not subject to having the rug pulled out from under them (literally) by commercial developers.
left vs right is nonsense that has been constructed to make you play these games every time they take your rights.
you have been punk'd
now wake up and realize BOTH SIDES own you.
Yes, what a very whacked way to describe 'public' use. So that some lame-ass municipality can cry and get it's tax base. The justices that ruled in favor of this should be ashamed.
But lets not assume this is some kind of 'liberal' conspiracy to take away your summer home in the hamptons... Wal-Mart, the (ahem...) largest employer in the US, was definitely behind this and other land grabs. They are always trying to force local governments (usually not a hard thing to do...) to allow zoning changes so they can throw up one of their "always low wages" super-scenters.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
This ruling doesn't suprise me one bit. The true light of the Libs is burining brightly!!! They have been taking property in the form of high taxes for years. The Libs believe that the Gov't owns everything and are gracious enough to "allow" you to keep 40% of your income for being a good "subject" to their elitist socialist rule.
If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
Decisions like this breed domestic terrorism.
Someone hates these cans.
IN GENERAL
Conservatives support individual rights and tradition
Liberals support 'good government' and the public welfare at large
Libertarians support individual rights at all costs without the traditional social values of conversatives
Socialists do not believe in private property
PICK YOUR SIDE
Stop saying that
Liberals = Good + Freedom
Conservatives = Christianity + Oppression = Bad
It simply isn't true, you are equating Conservatisim with a religion and ignoring the political and philisophical realities.
Face it, liberals do not value many rights, especially property rights, as much as conservatives, so deal with it and change your label from hardcore liberal instead of trying to pull in good conservative ideas under the liberal umbrella.
...any motherfucker who tried to take my home would face my friends Smith and Wesson!
THIS is why the 2nd amendment exists!
if simply saying it "serves a public purpose" is all you need, you can do anything. "this mall will employ thousands of pimple-faced teenagers who would otherwise turn to drugs" or even just "my shiny new building will make the area look better". just needs the right spin. it's like getting work to pay for anything that is "work related". i should tell my boss i wouldn't have to buy soap if it wasn't for the job, therefore they should pay for it. it's all downhill from here.
Where exactly are you reading this?
In short, I just don't think this case has much connection to the constitution; certainly not as much as, say, a commerce-clause case, which at least looks at whether the constitution's wording fits the authority the federal government is claiming.
O'Connor says that the court, by considering a roundabout justification of "public use", is effectively removing the "public use" constraint from the constitution. I'm afraid that is wishful thinking on her part, at least from where I'm sitting. The fact is that in this matter, and in many others, the constitution is just vague. The constitution does not and cannot forbid local governments from doing stupid and unfair things.
But this brings up an interesting point to me. We learn in school that the Supreme Court's role is to interpret the constitution and ensure that laws and government or private actions do not violate it. Of course, this is not strictly the case; really, every court in the country does this, and the SC also follows the various legal traditions, and even may cite abstract notions such as "reason and justice" themselves (as O'Connor does indirectly, quoting Jutice Chase).
This, of course, leads to a fundamental (and I assume, among legal scholars and students, very familiar?) contradiction of modern law: there is so damn much of it, in conflicting decisions from different ages, in common law and other legal traditions, in legislative law both current and obsolete; can't a judge, like a skillful vendor, pluck the most favorable cherries, and present these as his produce? To find an unequivocal voice against eminent domain, Thomas, in his dissent, quotes Blackstone and Kent's interpretations of common law (thanks, Wikipedia). All well and good, but if you will go as far back as you need to in order to find clear allies, why bother to cite them at all? What Thomas really means is, this case has just gone too far; regardless of what the founding fathers would have done, or the Taney court, or the Marshall court, or whoever, *I* say eminent domain shouldn't go so far. The other justices are no different. O'Connor points out that "the parcel might eventually be used for parking," supposedly as an innocuous bit of background information, but of course this reflects her sense of outrage, not that there has been a technical misinterpretation of law, but that wrong is being done.
Stevens et al's opinion quotes various cases where local governments' eminent domain seizures have beeen upheld, then says "There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized." Well, okay, but doesn't that beg the question of why those other decisions were right in the first place?
Really, why are the opinions in this case any more cogent that a simple "dude, that's fucked up!" or "dude, the town's gotta do what the town's gotta do!"? Why are any decisions considered any more cogent than that?
Actually, I think it's probably "the government" acting in its interests too- preventing any erosion of eminent domain. What's next, people arguing how much of the "public interest" that new bypass is? Can't have that!
I'd have less of a problem with eminent domain if property owners had to be compensated several times fair market value for their property (you're being forced off your land, you need something more than just "what it was worth"). It'd make developers and government planners think twice about pushing people around.
The whole concept is from legislation dating back to the 1800's for the railroads to gobble up property to build cross-country rail lines. It's extremely outdated- few if any projects are big enough to require that sort of thing (and anyway, the railroads made a SHITLOAD of money, they could have bought the land fair and square).
Inconvenience doesn't superceede my rights.
Please help metamoderate.
ok, this sort of thing has been happening throughout the US FOR YEARS. However, it was generally whitewashed as "public" sporting stadiums, etc. Funny how very few were fighting it then. Now that it's for "developer projects" everyone finally sees the writing on the wall.
Yes the USA is becoming a corporatist, fascist state. This ruling is COMPLETELY in line with politics over the last 20 years, in which large corporations with huge ranks of lobbyists now control not only our government, but also our judiciary.
The constitution was NOT served by this ruling. Indeed, we shall have no recourse whatsoever if a local govt. wants to buddy up with corporate interests to build a project in your area. Now, they dont even need to coach it in terms as a public project. These are the kinds of rulings that are destroying our Constitutional Republic.
Think back to nazi germany in the late 1930's, and you'll see that it was the christian bankers,developers, etc with money that put the nazi's in power.
Events of the last 5 years have reinforced my idea that 90% of Americans dont give a shit about anyone else but themselves, and their "standard of living". Foreign wars over oil and ideology are only the beginning.
The future of American society is getting bleaker everyday, and it's not about lack of morals. It's about losing our personal liberty and rights as citizens.
It's as if Bush,et all know the downfall is coming, and they are rushing headlong to it AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
" The war against the rich and lower classes is over.
The rich have won."
You don't even know who's fighting this war. The battle was between the collective and the individual, and the individual lost. Now govt. can include increasing tax revenue as a reason to invoke eminent domain for "the public good". Whenever someone says something is being done for the public good, there's ussually at least one individual getting shafted. No surprise the more liberal judges voted for this while the conservative judges were against the ruling.
Vote for Pedro
All these laws require due compensation (as per the 5th) to be given. What it means is they force you to sell your house to them, they don't take it form you for nothing.
Now if what they give you is fair or not is a matter of some debate. Online I see lots of people screaming about it being far too low, though offering no proof. In real life I know a couple people who have been displaced by eminent domain and they got quite a good deal out of it.
So provided a fair value is paid as the law requires (read the decision, they didn't change that they just declared that private development could be for the public good) then it's not unjust. I'm not sure I'd call it fair or a good idea, but it's not like you get put out on the street with nothing.
To quote "the dammed fools - I told them". This is the logical conclusion of a corporatist state, like yours, where the rights of an individual count for nothing compared to the rights and privileges of corporations. You are now, officially, corporate slaves.
This has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat, the rather pathetic shadow boxing which your owners use to confuse you and distract you from what's reallly going on. And as for liberal vs. conservative - I give up, by the standards of real politics you're all hard right conservatives.
The deepest issue is in whose interests is the state run? It's not run in the interests of the people anymore, and hasn't been for at least fifty years. The last president who wasn't a corporate shill was Jimmy Carter, and before him probably Eisenhower.
So. What's to be done? You can, and probably will, lie down under this, so, before you roll over on your couch read, mark, learn and inwardly digest Martin Niemöller's lines about moral failure in the face of the Holocaust:-
'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'
You've already locked up your communists, destroyed your social democrats, and gutted your trade unions. So, I'd say that you're stuffed anyway.
This is a pity, you're a great country, with a lot of really amazing people. But only you can fix it now.
-- Anthony Staines
...we're armed.
As my dear daddy used to day, "If you think
you own real estate, just stop paying the taxes
and you'll find out who it really owns it."
So, the state can steal your property, paying whatever it chooses to pay, if anything, in compensation?
... all those troops need some comfort ...
With whose money will the State pay ? Let's make a guess, taxpayer's money ??
It is then allowed for the State to GIVE or sell (for how much exactly?) the property to a private business, in return for "higher" predicted tax income.
So, there are rules to ensure that the taxes will be paid? That they must be paid for a set number of years or at least a lump-sum paid in lieu ??
What if the business, who would of course pay tax, goes bankrupt?
Would a purchasing business be obliged to cover the "social debt" of the original business, which allowed the theft of the original property ?
But wait a minute, this principle could also work for *people* as well as property, could it not ?
Now what if the state/people/public good would better be served by forcing YOU personally to do something you really don't want to??
Similar, to say, conscription. With say, that shiny, shiny, new Pentagon database?
If all our wars are good, because we are simply the "Good Guys", no matter what.
THEN rather than be a poor/worthless/unemployed/ex-criminal (drug crimes, of course) *citizen*, why we could MAKE you join the army !! Send you ANYWHERE.
Do you the world of good! Make a man of you !!
No problem, since its better for the Public Good.
And what about women ??? Ummm. Well we'll find a use for you
Again it is for the public good.
Now what is your problem!
Dissent is illegal.
Protest is restricted to "Free Speech Zones".
Elections are "surprisingly" won, with the help of certain companies electronic voting machines.
Or re-districting.
In short: Jesus. Fucking. Christ. On a Pogo Stick.
Am I glad I live NOWHERE near the "Land of the Free".
Good luck to y'all.
(R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
advice from a pacifist
h utchinson/m0004884.html
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Let us be more clear about the issue -- the Supreme Court actually ruled that in the taking of property for the public use (which they said that this case is), the local government is given deference. Ie. the federal court systems assume that in such cases (where a local authority is legitimately exersizing its appropriate powers), they should not interfere with a local/state decision that calls upon laws and codes fairly applied.
People may be unhappy with this ruling, but you have to understand that it isn't the Supreme Court spontaneously deciding to just say it's broadly ok -- the question has in fact already been ok'd by the Connecticut Supreme Court (and many other state courts) in the first place, saying that this was a legitimate taking (and compensation) of land.
I for one find many things about this case to disagree with, and I think these cases of eminent domain are clearly pushing the boundary of "public good", but I find the court's argument plausible. Cases that reach the Supreme Court don't get there because the problems are easy to solve. And I usually find that either way are decided, the people on the losing side will come up with good ways to rectify their situation. In this case, now it's up to local citizens to take out their anger on the local politicians who decide to do this, using votes against the corporatization of most everything in our society.
I've always found the idea of absolute ownership of land to be somewhat weird. I'm glad that the courts sided with the state in saying that eminent domain is a matter best decided by the local government. Owning land is not a basic human right, like say free speech, or due process.
Though from what I've read about the development plans the city has for this area seem somewhat shallow, if the people of the city deem it good to raze a few suburban homes to revitalize their city, who are we to stop them?
Ever been a renter? Your home can be uprooted any time. Some tenant laws try to help you out, but basically you're screwed if your landlord decides to turn your apartment into a dog kennel. I don't see why a municipality can't do the same. I don't see why someone who has a deed to the land has absolute power over it.
Given the huge increase in home ownership in the last 10 years, and the sacrifices ordinary people make to get it, I can see how those who have bought into the American dream feel gypped. But noone is safe from government. The mob is dangerous but they are also our only security. Without goverment, we'd all be sitting around teaching ourselves the times tables and ruining the water table with bad septic systems and drinking untreated water that gave us disentery.
There would be no national highway system to let us drive home for Thanksgiving.
Of course corruption in local government is always a problem, but that's not what the justices were ruling on.
Looking at the Democratic party from a UK liberal point of view, they look very much like Social Democrats to me.
Deleted
To each according to his need.
Pork is not a verb
Due to the new McCain/Feingold compaign finance reform legistlation you can no longer post on the internet against or in favor of publicly elected officials. This interpretation of the law was demanded by a federal judge. The law was said to be constitutional by this same supreme court. Once the supreme court rules the second amendment doesn't garantee an individual right we will have no recorse.
Anyone else find it ironic that there's an icon of Charman Mao in the bottom corner of the CNN article?
I'm not the first one to suggest this, but here's how it should work.
1) When you go to pay your property taxes, you declare the value of your home. You can declare whatever you want, a penny or a fortune, it's your call.
2) When you declare the value, your house goes onto a website, think of it as the ultimate government ebay. Anyone who wants to can bid, including you. At the end of the auction, the highest bidder (which might be you) gets your home for the specified price, and pays property taxes on the price paid. Obviously the thing should have quite a few warnings so people don't accidentally get outbid, and if you win the auction then you just pay the taxes and you're done, but that's the basic idea.
This would solve most of the problem. People would have an incentive to declare the value of thier property truthfully, and the government would get the taxes it actually deserves. If some private entity wants to buy you out, then the price of your home goes up sharply in the next auction, and you have to pay the increased property taxes on that new value to hold them off. Economic development could continue (where it's profitable enough to entice the homeowners), and everyone is happy.
The problem with the current situation is that people can have home values assessed for next to nothing, and yet not be willing to sell for a king's ransom. This happens in NYC all the time, people complain every year if their homes get assessed at even half the market rate, many of them are declared to be worth only a few percent of the market rate, and yet nobody sells. It must be infuriating to a developer, people have super valueable houses, and yet it costs them nothing in taxes (because of low assessments), so there's no way to ever get them to move out when the value skyrockets. They're all holding out for the highest possible bid, and screwing the city out of a lot of property taxes. Clearly something is rotten there, and if the municipal government strikes back, well, neither side is a saint.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Where liberty dwells, there is my country. -- Benjamin Franklin
...Trump Tower!
All your base are belong to WalMart.
From the dissent:
/. (I've been hammered here before for it.). But what about private property that simply doesn't generate tax revenue?
"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process."
The sole argument for the misappropriation of these properties seems to be that the overall tax coffers would benefit. That is, there will be higher property, income, and sales taxes due to the economic development.
Now, I'm as pro-business as you'll find on
Churches would be poster-children here: they provide no tax revenue (property, sales, etc), and generally, they exist in spite of popular opinion: a 80% baptist (or catholic/muslim/jewish/etc) community could very easily decide that the property of a minority religion's church is simply expendable.
This opens doors of corruption, discrimination, and hatred on a scale that simply frightens me.
I hope they designate a church on one of those properties quickly (before the bulldozers get there) so that this goes back up on a (slightly) stronger ammendment claim (the First!).
One final thought: I have yet to find ANYONE who thinks this is a good idea! I've heard people blame it on the "corporate elite" (presumably right-wing), and on the "socialists and statists", but nobody's claiming this as their own! How do we get a majory of justices on the SCOTUS that nobody agrees with??
The reason why most people don't want to invest in Third World countries is because of unstable property rights. What's the point of building a factory or owning an expensive house in Nigeria when some government official could just decide to take it away? It feels like the US is joining the ranks of those countries. Now our government can seize our houses just because someone has a development plan for our neighborhood. They routinely seize houses because of suspected drug dealing (suspicion is all that is needed). We have to pay property tax on the value anyway. So we're paying them tax for the privilege of owning it... but they can yank that privilege away under the flimsiest of prextext! Sure doesn't make me enthusiastic about owning stuff (real estate or other assets) here. There are so many other countries to choose from.
Pfizer Inc
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
New London Development Corporation
165 State Street, Suite 313
New London, CT 06320
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
This is something that may infact be legal (despite the fact it seems to spit in the eye of the spirit or intention of the amendment), but this is something that the city should not do. Even though they have proven they have the power to do so, that does not mean that it should be done. These expropriations are morally repugnant. I hope the politicians involved burn in the purgatory of not being re-elected!
More Caffeine. NOW
the coffin of Democracy. What is happening to our country? Something wicked this way comes...
Non-abandoned commercial properties *always* generate more tax revenue than similarly-sized private properties.
A nice, extreme-seeming, example: if the city seized Bill Gates' home and turned it over to Pfizer to build their new drug plant they could easily write-up a reasonable projection that the Pfizer plant would generate more tax revenue than they get even off of Gates' super-expensive mansion and income taxes (especially when you remember that cities typically get a very small portion of income tax revenue).
The real winners today are those who manipulate political power on the municipal and state levels. The Supreme Court pretty much outright stated that it is municipalities who are most capable of ascertain the appropriateness of eminent domain "land grabs". The people who directly win are the large corporations who can usurp privately owned property under the guise (albeit perhaps truthfully) of more jobs / taxes for the locality. As an extension, their middle men, the lobbyists, will be far busier at lower levels of state and township government. It's a very sad day for individual property rights.
The city probably would have just raised their property taxes so much they'd have to move out. Either way, the city wins.
Is there anything else that the Homeowners can do? Any form of appeals or anything?
IANAL, and I don't know the system of appeals in the US Justice system really well - can anyone here explain?
Is there anything they can do, or are they SOL? Anyway that in the future they can bring this up for review by the Supreme Court again?
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Good luck at the state and local level. State and local goverments are in usually in the hip pocket of real estate developers or other wealthy constituents.
This was a awful, awful decision today by the supreme court.
I was wondering about the same thing myself. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all considered property, and if the government can confiscate it and hand it over to another private party, it shouldn't be restricted to real estate.
What's to stop the court from saying "Paramount, you've screwed public for the last time with Enterprise, we are now confiscating your Star Trek property and handing it over to Pixar."
/ my original post is in the depths of zeroland with the rest of the A.C.'s.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
And says nothing about private property be taken for private use, therefore this isn't protected by the 5th.
That is the sound of the horn of Gabriel, signaling the Apocalypse, I can't believe I agree with Sandra O'Connor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
San Francisco Photographers
For a brief moment, this was the top story on all major news sites.. until someone new got arrested in Aruba.
If they wanted to mess with the Constitution, couldn't they take away a right that's being squandered, like freedom of the press?
"it was a 5-4 decision, which the conclusion being that the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.
They stated that this doesn't nothing to prevent states from legislating limits on eminent domain seizures by municipal government"
I wish there was a constitutional amendment to protect my money and property even a fraction of the amount speech gets.
Vote for Pedro
You're not fooling anyone with this. Your logic is that this is bad legislation and we should blame Bush/Repubs for this, since they're the ones who appointed them. This is backwards.
The Dems are the ones who say no litmus test (abortion). So thus we don't know how judges will vote on singular issues. We only know their record and can estimate their ideology.
Now clearly more conservative judges dissented from this ruling. I have yet to hear any conservatives praising this. Turn on your radio, or visit the conservative websites if you don't believe me.
This case also has me confused because it can be viewed from so many different ways.
Surprisingly, it can be interpreted as a victory for states' rights (a very Republican issue, as opposed to a liberal power play to take away "honest" little people's property), because the Supreme Court opinion actually deferred to the local governments to carry out laws as they see fit. The surprising thing is that this similar group of justices just decided last week to make the federal law concerning marijuana trump local California law (although in that case it regarded the Commerce clause, not eminent domain.
Sometime ago this judicial body had decided that it was within their charter to effectively create legislation at will, and simply ignore the constitution.
This is just one more example of a good system that has gone terribly wrong, and is in dire need of repair.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If I busted into someones house, stole $1000, invested it, and returned $1200 to the rest of his family. Technically speaking they would be better off financially, but realisticly speaking they would be way worse off because they would no longer have the freedom to controll their lives.
Well, all to often, this seems to be the exact attitude of city governments. As long as they can loosely justify the illusion that taxing the city to death and exercising immenent domain everywhere can create more propserity, then it must be ok. Thankfully, most people in society don't ry to follow that example.
We have waited to long to push the scourge of America under the carpet. The sooner we can remove the bane of those poor neighborhoods from our communities the better!
It says shall not be taken for PUBLIC use. They took it for PRIVATE use. And of course from the article, do you SEE anything about the compensation? How do we know they weren't paid fair market value for their homes? Sure it's a pain in the ass, but the key points here are: 1) It was taken for PRIVATE use and the constitution doesn't give any statements concerning that. 2) The constitution says without just compensation. If they were paid them fair market value for their homes under any circumstance, that's just tough I've seen many homes gobbled up for road construction, road widening, whatever kind of public works for decades. That's just the way it goes.
for the home I own.
Political and givernment Private business (an oyymoron to begin with) now has the right to disrespect my private business?
Seems to me not only does fair market value and moving costs and such should be paid, but also some percentage of the return of the business taking property from me. And paid on a continual basis for a number of years to compensate me for deny my private business of equity value.
insightful my ass. I disagree with the ruling, but this is just lame martyr rhetoric.
I think lobbyists are the end of democrazy. democrazy is not about the power of the prople, but the power of the people with money. corporations, huge organisations.
:(
this world is getting crazier by the day
Privacy is terrorism.
If you're likely to fit into the group that buys a house and stays put until you die then you could be harmed by this ruling.
A person who buys and works 30 years to pay off their house in anticipation of living on their retirement (Fixed income). Typically these neighborhoods will go down in value as the houses age over the years. The property will probably retain or increase in value.
Perhaps it's lakefront property that you bought 30 years ago when the city did not even incorporate in that area and you were rural. But urban sprawl eventually caused to be in the city's influence.
Now the city is looking for more tax revenue due to their overspending and have limited options for development. Rather than raise the taxes on the whole to make up for this, or the citizens deal with the big spenders through the elective process those council members hear from private developers that you have some land they are interested in. So they begin the process of condeming property to allow the developer to take over.
Now the neighborhood is a bit run down but it's a quality place to live and many living there are fixed income retirees. The city is now telling them to move and a house that normally woudl be worth 200,000 dollars is only being offered 60,000 dollars. These people cannot afford to move because nowhere in the immediate area can you buy a brand new house for 60,000 dollars. In fact that barely would make the 20% payment requirements now due to inflation.
So in essence you're kicking these people on the streets, or they get new houses and work till the day they die and instead of their house going to their kids or grandchildren it gets repossessed and your investement for the enjoyment of your family is gone forever.
The only way it can be fair compensation is if these people are relocated into a paid off house with sufficient tax breaks on the house as to facilitate the ability to live as before with possibly some money on the side to help with the loss of a treasured property. To not offer that at the minimum should be illegal. The developer could afford it, and there's no reason they can just come along and uproot your entire life and financial future just to build something so they can make money.
In this case, the property is being taken from private homeowners, but real harm will come when the takings are from non-profit organizations. Private homes are taxed at comparable rates to commercial property, so the tax gained from turning the former into the latter is relatively small. Non-profits, however, get low rates of taxation, so the motivation to covert them will be much higher. A conversion even without new construction or sales tax (i.e. a Costco or Walmart) is likely to triple a city's income. Very tempting.
Some have attempted to muddle what's happening by pointing to party appointments in an effort to conceal the extent to which this is the sort of thing liberals like to do. But that won't wash. The court's liberals went for the measure 100% (Ginsburg and Breyer). The court's conservative's opposed it 100% (Scalia and Thomas, perhaps Rehnquist). Though Kennedy and Souter were appointed by Republicans, conservatives consider them both spineless and traitors. Their appointments represented an effot to appease Democrats and they should be regarded as Democratic appointments.
The only real surprise was O'Connor, and she's typically a swing vote. Her roots in the Southwest probably make her more inclined to be suspicious of government taking of land.
So get real folks. This is liberalism at it's rawest--the goverment expanding its power at the expense of ordinary people. J. R. R. Tolkien, who liked his government small and limited, would be outraged. It's exactly the sort of thing Saruman did in the Shire, converting private property into public.
--Mike Perry Untangling Tolkien
Id you are willing to be run over by bulldozers to get your point across.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
What if it provides local jobs, or gives the neighborhood a nice downtown?
According to government and their economists, "public good" is best served by keeping everyone constantly employed, doing some inane task. Unfortunately, according to the average person, "individual good" is best served by lounging around doing whatever the fuck you want to all day.
Whenever we reach the point as a civilization where individuals can afford to lounge around, the government (and banks) take it upon themselves to put them back to work by any means necessary. They'll go so far as to destroy things in order to keep us employed, so they can continue skimming off the product of our efforts. There is never an economic justification for destroying property and making people work to rebuild it. In my city, they've gone as far as buldozing entire city blocks, replacing them with open fields, and then wondering years later why the economy sucks, housing is over-crowded, and crime rates have tripled.
The two philosophies of "individual" and "public" good are in direct conflict, mostly because the original meaning of "public good" has been hijacked by socialist idiots such as the liberals on the Supreme Court. Originally, it meant "everyone benefits". Emminent domain is there to facilitate the situations in which the government can come in, pay Suzy for her property, Suzy can then go buy a similar (or better!) property, and everyone lives happily ever after.
With real estate, though, it never works that way. Someone already mentioned property taxes. Suzy will be paying more of those when she moves. People who own their own homes have usually put way more time, effort, and money into them than is reflected in the "market value". This value is lost when the government appraisers come in.
For every house bulldozed, the price of remaining houses goes up. By the time Suzy has spent 6 months living in hotels and searching for a suitable new property, she probably can't afford anything similar to her old house. Usually, Suzy will end up moving from a prime location to some suburb 10 miles from anywhere. She'll probably have to pay more for transportation.
Also, these "urban development" areas are usually picked ahead of time based on their low property values. Odds are good that Suzy will go from living in an affordable house that she owns to renting, and owning nothing.
The icing on the cake is that, 50% of the time, the planned development is something stupid and unproductive like a stadium or a park. So, instead of creating a net economic benefit large enough to compensate Suzy for her house as well as for the damages caused by relocation, these projects end up being economic burdens on the local economy and government. Instead of "everyone benefits" as in the "public good", no one benefits but some well-connected developers and politicians.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
This decision was correct (and I'm a raging libertarian). The Constitution does not place any requirement on the taking of private property, other than that you get just compensation.
The SCotUS was correct. Federal courts should not be in a position to second-guess local governments' interpretations of use (barring other unconstitutional issues, such as race-related takings); furthermore, there is no fundamental right of yours being violated, either implied or expressed in the Constitution.
That being said, yes, the cases involved are egregious. When the gubmint takes from one private party and gives to another, it is interfering with free trade, which any right-minded conservative must be against. Compound this with the fact that government is owned by the rich, including rich land developers, you have a recipe for evil. I'm glad, actually; maybe people will wake up and realize that BushCorp and subsidiaries are fucking evil.
This was a constitutional question. The so-called "liberal" judges restrained the issue to whether the local government had abused their power and simply established that, yes, they clearly had the "public good" in mind and were compensating the owners of the property. The fifth amendment guarantees ONLY that you will be compensated for such seizures, NOT that such seizures will not occur and NOT that such seizures must be purely for non-private benefit. The Supreme Court has no business deciding ANYTHING but the constitutional question and that is precisely what was done. Having read the opinion, they did an excellent job of determining that the local government had a well established justification with the public good in mind and that the owners were being compensated ergo it was a constitutionally sound action--thus deferring any further judgment to the appropriate state and local bodies. What, precisely, is improper about that?
In that sense, these "liberal" judges were being extremely CONSERVATIVE. The so-called "conservatives" were wanting to run rough-shod over the constitution to leap-frog the federal government straight over the state into an issue appropriately handled by local government. THAT would be a "liberal" action in the usual pejorative sense of the term.
I am not surprised that your comment got moderated down to a "zero."
/., should be places where people are treated with respect, not ad-hominem attacks or presumptions of guilt by association.
All forums, including the internet via
I for one, would be reluctant to paint the Republican party as a whole (or you) in negative terms.
It is not just what you mean to say, but what you do choose to say and *how* you say it that counts. Some people call this manners, some call it respect, some call it freindliness or congeniality, but whatever you choose to call it, I believe George H.W. Bush had it right when he said he wanted a "...kinder, gentler Nation." Please try being a part of it.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I suppose you oppose Roe vs. Wade and the right to privacy?
O'Connor's dissent was surprisingly terse and (*gasp*) conservative!
Um, no. Conservatives claim to support states rights, at least when it's in their interests (*cough*Florida*cough*2000*cough*). So in desenting she was not being sterotypically conservative.
Next time, please do your homework first. -D
Phone call for Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot is on the line...
-Thomas Jefferson, 1787
So who's taking bets on the longevity of our current leaders, when private property can be seized for private use?
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
If it's my house, my business, my whatever, it's mine. Not yours. Not New London's. Not whomever else's. I worked for it. Mine. It's utterly irrelevant how much you're prepared to pay for it if I don't want to sell. It is black and white.
You want to build something else? Fine. Go take over the city council's properties. Leave mine alone. This is theft, pure and simple. There;'s precious little difference between this and Cuba's "nationalization" of property after the revolution.
You wait and see. There will now be a LOT of cases where governments decide to "streamline" the process of changing their cities, counties, states, or whatever just to please whoever's in charge, or the local big business they want to buddy up to.
It won't usually involve $17M/acre. It will be backed up with guns if necessary. And it could just as easily be you as anyone else.
Based purely on this one ruling, those judges should be (at a minimum) in public stocks the rest of their lives. Preferably on a flatbed trailer so they can be toted around the country for everyone to laugh at, maybe throw a few tomatoes. I wouldn't have a problem with flogging, either.
But while we're at it, throw in the New London governmental morons who started this.
The judges swing both ways, huh? Bow chicka bow-bow. Who wouldn't pay to see some bisexual supreme court justice on justice action!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well said!
I firmly believe most people's beliefs fall into the "moderate" range. It's tiresome and counterproductive to constantly attempt to pigeonhole everything into a liberal/conservative, capitalist/socialist, them/us, good/evil, etc..
I just wish things would be discussed based on the merits of the proposal/concern/idea rather than attempting to divide everything in clear black and white terms.
As far as this particular issue, I find the ruling greatly disturbing. It's troubling enough that goverment has the right of emminent domain, but in it's current definition, it is rarely abused, since no real profit incentive is present to promote abuse. But allowing government to act as an intermediary to sieze private property for a private interest is just begging for abuse. Large bussinesses and corporations already have far too much influence over politics as it is.
I think it was John Locke and one of his documents.
"I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?"
This all just smacks to me of what happen during the second world war, or better said what caused it. Instead of physical domination and occupation of a country, we are using economics instead. The outcome however is strikingly similar.
The Nazi party at the time claimed that it was the Jews that were causing the problems with the country and true Germans not prospering like they were destined to. Now we use the excuse of economics to do the same thing. Instead of Jews we have targetted the poor instead. The rich don't like to look at how the poor have to live. They take up valuable land that could be used better by real Americans to prosper. So we will force them out of their homes and remove the last security these people have, more than likely plunging most into the final throw of complete failure. These are the poor, the poeple who struggle to pay bills because they don't earn enough to cover them. The ones who don't have access to the credit needed to start somewhere else. People who's homes have like equity to begin with and won't be able to take the fair value cash, minus the bank note and start over. It makes me sick to my stomach to see that so many Amercians actually can justify this to themselves. Scarey
Years from now, you'll all be able to say you were there on the day that it all began. Even the smallest whisper becomes a battlecry if enough utter it.
The Supreme Court does not have the final say on *everything*. We have checks and balances! If the court is out of line, a constitutional amendment can be passed or a judge/judges could be impeached. Another way would be to bring a case before the a newer court and have the older ruling overturned.
Throwing up your hands and saying, "Oh well, the court ruled blah blah blah" is wrong. Maybe the court *is wrong*!
Maybe it would take an impeachment to rattle things a bit.
1. Local Governments have the right to Forcibly purchase property for the public good (not seize - not take). This has been true since day one. ...(and I for one would have no problem taking what the property tax guy say my property is worth)
2. The public good can be a private development. (was never used this way before but nothing in the bill of rights (not the constitution) prevents this) the court didn't write acticle 5 they just read it as it was written.
3. The definition of public good is Not a power given to the Federal Government so only the states can make that decision. (meaning that while the court may question the local decision they can not overturn it.)
Over all not much new here...remember eminent domain has existed forever but is rarely used because of this type of reaction. Using it without popular support can mean a quick end to your political career.
Like any government power this one can be abused. the only way to stop this is to pay attention and react when it happens. Of course with so many ready to throw away our rights to question the government it may get harder and harder.
. . . .
And you think you're so clever and class less and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see
. .
John Lennon
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Strict constructionists rule! The court obviously needs more of 'em and I hope Bush gets a chance to deliver a few. It's funny how judges like that always surprise idealogues of every persuasion by simply doing their job as intended: being as true as they can to the constitution.
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
Coming from a L/libertarian perspective, "neo-conservatives" are "stupid liberals."
But whenever I say that, it seems to upset liberals almost as much as the "stupid liberal neo-cons."
Regardless, politics is dead. The Democrats and Republicans are all the same. The politicians are all scumbags, and the masses that follow them are all stupid.
The Republicans are in reality promoting big-government solutions for everything, and higher taxes (or higher debt) to pay for it. The only thing they give towards smaller government is lip service.
The Democrats don't give a shit about personal liberty anymore. Again, at least not beyond lip service.
Anyone that seems to contradict these statements is the exception rather than the rule.
And it seems pointless to even discuss this or left-wing-socialism vs right-wing-socialism vs libertarian-socialism. The system is broken and it doesn't look like people of integraty will ever get enough power to make significant change.
Forget national politics, focus on local politics. This case is an excellent example of that. Make sure you don't have complete fsckheads on your city council etc. and maybe they won't steal your property and give it to Walmart or whatever.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
Reminds me of a movie with Tommy Lee Jones, "Stranger on My Land" about how the Air Force tries to use eminent domain to seize a Vietnam vet's farm.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why don't we slashdot our representatives, if we can take down a server why can't we take down this very foolish decision. goto http://www.govtrack.us/congress/replookup.xpd and put in your zip code to find out who to write.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This runs so counter to the concept of using eminent domain for the public good that I could scream.
Actually, I DID scream. Never in my fucking life did I actually get so emotional about how fucked up our government is. Today, I let out a deep fucking scream to let it all out.
I call for a revolution...if it's not already in the process.
Life is not for the lazy.
This calls for a boycott of all business and associated business that initiated the property grab! Force those that paid-off the supreme-court to recant. This is no longer an issue of party affiliation, but rather an issue of being American.
Clinton is NOT a democrat. Clinton shares nothing in common with LBJ or Kennedy no matter how many times he invokes their name. Clinton is a peice of crap who lies and steals and cheats.
Clinton took away the saftey net that many people relied on for food. He took away welfare from people who can not work, are mentally ill, or are somehow fucked up. But Clinton expanded corporate welfare. It was under Clintons watch that Enron happened. The whole whitewater attitude was in place.
And while I am at it, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a rotten, dirty, skank! She never should have been confirmed by congress. If Ginsburg was a southpark character, she would be a crack whore.
We should do away with the Courts. Instead, every citizen should be given two things. #1- A copy of the constitution. #2- A gun. No courts needed. Life would be so simple. Want to avoid conflict, stay on your land. Want to start conflict, fuck with someone elses land. I almost wish every person had a gunbelt with gun like the old wild west flicks. It would be the great equilizer. No longer would the crack addict who wants to rob you have the upper hand because he has a gun and you don't. And at the same time, no longer would some evil corporation be able to take your land or screw you, because when 200 people with guns showed up outside his office, he would be fucked. I will repeat that, it will be more effective to have 200 people with guns than a march of 10,000 protestors.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
with 7 repubs and 2 dems on the court ALL decisions are republican decisions.
Dont try to pin this on anyone but the republicans
Individual rights must be protected by individuals, by force if necessary. Property is an individual right. No one is responsible for protecting your property but you.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
And what are you going to do when Walmart is the one taking your house? Shoot 100K share holders? Or more likely, the rent-a-cop, or the CEO corporate flunky? As long as you're making a blood sacrifice, that will even the books? Are you willing to destroy your family's economic survival to prove a point?
The answer not just "yes...it's HELL FUCKING YES! If I'm kicked out of my home and property because I'm too "poor" to afford my own investment, then I personally have nothing left to live for. Everyone has their own value on life, and this is mine. It's because of such actions how revolutions are started.
Life is not for the lazy.
While everyone is bitching and moaning about the Patriot Act and protecting your library cards... They took your house from you.
Hey.... So you've got nowhere to live, but your library cards are SAFE!
Yeah... Way to get your priorities straight....
Go Liberal Judges!!!! Woohoo.... take more from me you bitches....
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
You're just trying to pin blame on a decision you don't like. You can pretend that the "conservatives" voted against this, but according to their appointments almost the whole court is conservative. This is the same thing as those Republicans in Congress who say that Democrats are the reason they can't get anything done. If you can't get anything done with a majority it's not because you can't, it's because you won't. This should be a rallying call for true conservatives and liberals to get out and vote out this whole mess of corporate teat sucking "public" officials. While we're at it we might as well start calling them "private officials".
Let's be honest Bush will appoint someone who would uphold this decision. Let's not forget that the Republican party is no longer conservative. They are neo-conservative. Most of the true conservatives have wandered off into other parties. This would fit into the neo-conservative mode of thinking perfectly. After all, the government shouldn't be allowed to give private citizens the ability to own private property. That's creating an unfair public monopoly on real estate ownership granting rights. All land should be deregulated and acutioned off to privately held corporations (kingdoms) who will do with the land what is best for their land owners (serfs). If the land owner (serf) doesn't like losing his land he can choose another corporation (kingdom) to buy from as long as they have not been bought out by the first corporation (kingdom) in the meantime.
Come on people. Wake up. Stop voting for silly things like the most Christian candidate. Our current President doesn't even go to church and you elected him on morals! You're f#cking morons!
stop thinking in groups, dem vs repub
think rich vs poor
thats what its about. stop trying to pigeonhole to fit a political philosopy
its all about money aint a damn thing funny got to have a con in this land of milk and honey
I must say that I am very encouraged to see how many of us agreeing, and from the various sides of the spectrum, that this is ruling is a bad thing. Who would have thought that the Supreme Court would have been such an agent for bringing us together.
George Carlin had the right idea, but didn't know how to go about accomplishing his goal. Thanks to this descision there is now a workable plan:
(must... resist... the... urge... to... profit!!!)
Before this ruling neither the states NOR the fed had this power now the states have the power to take my home. How is giving the states more power, at the expense of the people, a good thing?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
How many times do we have to get fucked in the ass by the government before we get incredibly pissed off? I can only imagine since the 4th is gone, we have precious little time to use the 2nd.
Of course it is easy to say it is a sellout to big business, but suddenly a city has some great legal tools to:
.
a) get rid of slumlord landlords
b) get rid of abandoned factories
c) get rid of walmarts
d) get rid of foreign car dealerships
This is probably the most significant legal development in our lifetimes. The Japanese actually empower their cities to have similar rights. This is how they keep foreigners out of their markets. Now we can do it to them and to the Chinese. Don't like Walmart? Just sieze the land for community development.
There's a LOT for the left wing to love about this
This is my sig.
"Thank you for seeing through the knee-jerk reaction. Basically they said what the Conservatives would normally say, the states have the power. Rather than limit the rights of the states this ruling gives them more power. What they do with it is not for the federal government to decide.
Want your state to make laws to prevent this? Show up and vote."
This has to do with interpreting the 5th amendment properly, not about state's rights. State's cannot have rights that violate the constitution. Saying that local govts. can take anyone's property for any reason that vaguely falls under "for the public good" is not a correct interpretation. What's the point of having a bill of rights if they are watered down to the point of being useless.
Vote for Pedro
Things GW has pushed for:
There are a bunch more I'm sure. By sheer count, his positions are probably neutral or right-center. By budget cost, his positions are left/left-center.
Kerry never really told us WHAT his positions were other than whatever Bush supported he didn't and whatever bush didn't support he did. (also some things bush wasn't supporting nearly enough)
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"it was a 5-4 decision, which the conclusion being that the supreme court doesn't feel it's their job the decide what falls within the "public good" clause of eminent domain.
They stated that this doesn't nothing to prevent states from legislating limits on eminent domain seizures by municipal government"
States have no right to violate the 5th amendment, but the court didn't see it that way.
Vote for Pedro
Don't worry guys, if the government wants to seize your house all you have to do is lie down in front of the bulldozers! Preferably in your pajamas.
They almost certainly won't run you over.
[I can't believe no one posted this yet!]
- Obtain an injunction from a federal court.
- Sue for damages under 42 USC 1983.
The point is that making a state respect an injunction from a federal court might require sending in the army (remember school desgregation?). So the first avenue wasn't sufficient, and the second was had to be created.Ford cannot credibly be described as a conservative.
It depends on how you define "conservative" as the meaning is changing, has changed from previous definitions. The same with "liberal". Thomas Jefferson's and Thomas Paine's "Liberal" was someone who believed in a small and limited government, but today it's closer to socialism or big government. Meanwhile conservative back then believed in a big and powerful federal government. Conservatives are still for big government, the only difference between conservatives and liberals today is in what part of government is big. The only political party today with the classical liberal outlook of a small and limited government is the Libertarian Party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
guess we need bush judges more than ever now
HA! I used to think the same as you, but I've come to realize that conservative in america != support of the little guy or support of the constitution
Here in america, conservative means to support big business. The republican party has forsaken us in support of those with big pockets (corporations).
--
Looking for a pyramid? Join the conga!
Ha.. you MORON!!!
Dude.. what he was referring to was that the Judges that said YES to this decision were the LIBERAL JUDGES...
NOT the Conservative ones. The Conservative ones where who disagreed and therefore dissented with the ruling.
Nice job dipshit. Get the facts first then post. Your #4 is right back in your face. Hope you feel intelligent, because your post speaks otherwise.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Government gets bigger and more powerful.
Freedom and Liberty go down the drain.
Nothing new to see here, move along....
Move along to New Hampshire, that is....
Join the Free State Project, because we _are_ working hard against things like this....
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
You can do something about this. Imagine slashdot of the slave era... Supreme court yet again ruled that slavery is perfectly legal... what a shame yada... yada... yada. Democracy does depened on the active citizenry, you know. What can you do? Well, according to the NYTimes article, over a thousand such sezures are made every year. I am sure some Slashdot reader has enough technical skills to device a public database of such locations. And then... let the civil disobedience begin. The NYTimes article mentions that they are planning to build a hotel on the site of the soon-to-be-demolished private property. If you truly value your property rights, you will never visit that hotel. Or give any business to any establishment that was built on any land seized by the government for private contruction. Or you could just assume that the history will take care of this frailing democracy and do what's easy -- bitch about it on slashdot for about 15 minutes.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Republican ticket vote. She's one of the swing voters on the court is all I'm implying.
How about we just limit Supreme Court judges to term limits instead of the "life" gig.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
$150,000 per year is not enough. our poor supreme court judges are starving hungry. someone has to support them at least even if its just some real estate developers...
The government gave itself the "right" to take your property for whatever purpose it wanted when it instituted the income tax. The only difference is that this doesn't happen to everyone. Oh wait, neither do income taxes...there's really no difference then.
And if they can take 15.3% of your paycheck to give to the 65+ population to help pay their bills, why are you surprised that they eventually decide they can take your home?
The libertarians are right. They have always been right. You will continue to call them freaks, radicals, anarchists, etc. until every last one of your freedoms is gone, and then you will say "Gee... I think the libertarians may have had a point. Once you give up one little tiny corner of the principles of just government, it's all dead."
Up next the government is able to seize virtual property.
You got to decide on the valuation of your house. I get mail from the city each year telling me their assessed value for tax purposes and a projection of next year. When I bought the place I paid quite a bit more than the value on the tax form. The market value has since gone up, as have the tax value, but not as fast as the market value.
So I dunno how they do it here, but it seems to be dictated. They just tell me "For tax purposes, your place is worth this much" and that's that. Doesn't seem to change what I can sell it for.
It's not the same situation, but there are definite parallels, and it's a great flick as well.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/
The Castle (1997/I)
A Melbourne family is very happy living where they do, near the Melbourne airport (according to Jane Kennedy, it's "practically their back yard"). However, they are forced to leave their beloved home, by the Government and airport authorities. 'The Castle' is the story of how they fight to remain in their house, taking their case as far as the High Court.
The Kerrigan family are a typical aussie "battler" family and living right next to the airport never seemed to be a problem for them until the airport wants to expand - on to their land. Their initial reaction is "f**k the airport" but it soon becomes obvious that airport is going to get its way - one way or another. This is Dale Kerrigan's story of their battle with the airport to keep their beloved house, along with "bloody good set of gates".
The toilets at a local police station have been stolen. Police say they have nothing to go on. - The Two Ronnies
This sort of ruling is going to allow the likes of my not-so-honest good-for-nothing pseudo-developer in-law to start proposing "redevelopment" to the city council to generate more "tax revenue" which he will do once he gets his ever-loving crooked hands on my property or someone else's, possibly even yours.
All he has to do in California is remind the city council privately, out of range of the microphones, that once the property is sold to him, that his property taxes he will pay in the redev area will skyrocket over 10/1, in addition to him then "causing" increased sales tax revenue. The city will have an overwhelming financial reason to approve the developer's "plan", to the detriment of the existing property owner, if he does NOT want to sell.
And how are you going to defend yourself against this one?
There are going to be broken knees or worse over this one.
See below. I was using 1983 as an example of the conflict between a literalist reading, original intent, reserved powers, and subsequent legislation.
(and, of course I agree it's constitutional. it's just an easy law to pick as an example of expansive use of legislative power by the federal government over the states.)
A neocon one. Neocons defined as a strange opportunistic, patrician class offshoot of true conservativism. As an actual conservative I must say that the neocons have been a scourge on my existance. Its getting really really hard to defend the actions of these weirdos.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
I sure am glad that I rent. What was the advantage of ownership supposed to be again?
What?
PBS Newshour already discussed this, but it means NOT just individual citizens property. But ANY property has this hanging over their heads.
Suicide rate for divorced men is over 30%, divorce rate is over 50%
This is not at all right. Google says the actual rate is 43.7 suicides per 100,000 divorced men, which is 0.0437%, far below 1%.
I don't point this out to minimize your problems, just to show you that over 99.9% of divorced men get through it, and you will too, even if it seems overwhelming right now. Hang in there.
I am reminded of a wonderful saying: Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.
Since our wonderful Supreme Court seems to think this is a justifiable thing, why not exercise it.
I hear that the neighborhoods where the SCOTUS justices live each needs a new playground for the children in the area. And while we are at it, why not throw in a McDonalds with a playground.
It would be absolutely fitting and wonderful to subject each justice who voted for this to the wonderfully fair process of eminent domain and land use condemnation. Last I heard, their property was only worth about $30,000 in the first place. Surely, our children need places to play (public good). Surely, we need more employment for the people (public good).
Too bad I don't live near DC, I would probably get into some real trouble over things like this!
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
I bet there are entire towns we could condemn to recreate a more profitable economic entity!
BWAHHHAAAAHHHAAA!! What sport.
Strangely, I see no prohibition against private property being taken for *private* use (with or without just compensation).
Too bad there isn't a "-1 Nitpicking" moderation.
...as if millions of liberal voices cried out in terror at the thought of the conservatives being right.
the Political Inquirer
OK, I just read the whole dang thing.
I have no problem saying that, for this case, the dissenting position should have been the majority position, for reasons beyond the fact that I agree with the immediate outcome.
I further have no problem in stating that the 3 of the 4 dissenters are the most consistently conservative members of the SCOTUS, while those in the majority vary from conservative to moderately liberal. (There are no currently no consistently liberal voices on the bench)
However, this does not mean that the majority opinion is "liberal", or even that the dissenting position is necessarily "conservative"; there's somewhat more complex issues at play here.
Let's consider another rubric, in which we consider the "political inclination" of the reasoning behind the differing opinion, ordered by the weight given in their argumentation:
Supporting the Majority:
1. State's Rights / Federal Gov't Defer to State-Level Authority: (the determination of the Conn. Supreme Courts were deferred to); this is "classically conservative" position
2. Strict Consideration of Law and Precedent: this is rather specific to how the SC conducts its business, but I think it's also fair to say that they used "conservative" reasoning in their approach (i.e. they saw no need to disrupt tradition or precedent, and so sought to follow it)
3. Favoring the General Public Good over the Individual Public Good: (the specifics of the case were examined and held that the development planning process was handled above board) - favoring the public good is generally considered to be a liberal position, but in the majority opinion there was little emphasis on the "public good" beyond the state's right to determine what this means.
Supporting the Minority:
1. Gov't may Not Interfere with Private Property - this is a classically conservative position
2. Federal Gov't May Override State-level (local) Issues - during the Civil War this defined the "Republican" position - however, since the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's this has been re-framed as the liberal position
3. Proposed Amendment/Clarification of Existing Legislation - ("Legislating from the bench") - recent propaganda to the contrary, "activist judges" are liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever. However, this sort of activity may be seen as procedurally Liberal (i.e. it makes waves) just as stricter interpretations make be seen as procedurally Conservative.
My conclusion is that while it is probably fair to label the dissenting opinion as an argument rising from conservative thinking, I could just as easily label the majority opinion as such.
Ultimately, I think we have a conflict between Moderate/Conservative process (i.e. the Court not seeking to make waves) and Conservative values (i.e. the underlying goals and ideals of Conservatism).
Either way this ruling sucks, but it annoys me greatly when
people look at an issue like this and immediately start to draw party line borders. Nuance can be important.
Im sure there are going to be many cases of maybe older people who have lived somewhere all their life being kicked out, and its very likely there will be a few armed show-downs with the owners holding their ground and eventually shooting themselves, cops or being taken down, its very sad. Younger people are less likely to be affected by this - they would be more likely to be moving around a bit, and perhaps moving into newer homes and apartment blocks that no-one intends to take down where as older folks who have property in an area that businesses have been eying up will be prime targets.
Hopefully the free market will sort this out - if you rape someone of their home, you should expect boycotts of your business by the local population, of course no-one can resist the low low prices of Walmart and so in reality people will just shrug and show you the deal they got on their new TV.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Small guy loses.
If you house is worth $170k, you'll be lucky to get $150k for it since they'll under appraise you as much as they can.
Not to mention they don't factor in moving costs, emotional stress, amongst others.
People get killed for shit like this. No lie.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I mean, you are going to make 100 billion dollars on your new MegaTowers Elite complex... *Why* do you have to skim and put some family out of thier home and send them packing with a check for $20k? I mean, do you really *have* to be such a fucktard? Why can't you put a check for a million dollars in the pocket of each family member? You'll STILL be making 100 billion bucks, and also you'll have good karma and show the world that capitalists can coexist together with normal society at the same time.
Conservativism at one point in time stood for smaller government, it wasn't until the 80s during the Reagan administration did the definition change. (the Neoconservatism era)
Actually it was liberals who stood for a small and limited government, as did the two Thomases, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine(or TomPaine.common sense). To get a good idea of what liberals stood for read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", "Rights Of Man" or other books of his.
Should there be a Law?
Hell you can have my house, my property and the bodies buried in it!
~
Here in Daytona Beach, there's been a debate across several years (and at least two county-councils) about what to do with the boardwalk. It's a carnival type affair with shops and games, the "big swing" and various other contraptions that launch you into the air whilst simultainously appearing decidedly unsafe. The whole thing recently became bordered by a huge mega-hotel complex that wants (big surprise) to expand onto the boardwak.
o ardwalk103004.htm
Everyone involved pretty much agrees that the boardwalk is inappropriate for the city's future vision: its carnival like atmosphere and rusting rides is somewhat unsightly and it would be nice if the whole thing was updated with less campy shops and things.
The 'Problem' is that the current owner has not abandoned it to become a blight, instead he makes his living maintaining the shops, rides, and game rooms. They are honkey-tonk, but they are safe and clean. Since he's been under threat of eminant domain seizure, not only has the owner not been able to sell (which he doesn't want to do, the property has been in his family for several generations i believe), he is also unable to obtain financing to make capital improvements on his property. The fact that he's not making such improvements was used as a principle argument FOR seizure. So he's been in this catch-22 for a few years now.
Apparantly, the situation's been resolved with the land being reappropriated to the development company. It appears they have avoided use of eminant domain, but only the actual exercise of it, the threat was apparantly enough to force the owner's hand. Details can be found at the Daytona News-Journal website: http://www.news-journalonline.com/special/beach/b
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to rende
hard core geek-ware
It may not be over legally owned land, but a contest for the deed. A deed is not superior claim. Allodial title is supreme, and only the holder can issue a deed; that is, to dedicate the land. Statutes change directions like the wind, but common law will never change. I can see this as being a dispute over the deed, the holders for the time being have been lied unto that they have superior claim with no intention to sell the deed. Although in lawful possession of the deed, it can be re-dedicated; by "lawful", I mean as defined two parties in agreement, voluntarily exchanging lawful consideration, satisfied, sworn, notarized, deed or Allodial title transferred. I compare deed to Allodial title as I would compare coupons to Gold, insurrance to assurance, ice to drinkable water.
It seems in this occasion, they weren't transfering title, but the deed. That's a tricky thought, when people think they own the soil when it was actually only lent to them with a warranty deed for which they are limited for what purposes the soil can be utilized. Having senior title, the Allodial, would be unhindered use of the soil at unlimited liability at non-limited liability to whatever arises of that use. Statutes effect the case for limited liability; you get none when you have appointed no land management other than nature.
I need say, "cold, dead, fingers" doesn't apply to this situation, but looking deeper; the structures on the soil are applicable; everything that you aren't in partnership or joint ownership, you hammer down on whatever assumptions made upon it. They're tresspassers. A friend of mine had an oozie that was seized when his cowardly neighbor made a false complaint saying he was torturing animals; he was a perfect example of what happens; beaten in jail, property seizures, no warrants, false warrants issued post-facto and on hear-say, seizures for tools and effects having no affiliation with the original complaint, four year court-battle, and the only people that were willing to stand by him were the "conspiracy nuts" and Uniform Commercial Code and Constitution "theorists" that go way back to some Martial Law crap Abraham Lincoln had put the States under et al etc etc etc. This all happened here in Westminster, California -- Orange County! TONY RACKAUCKAS dba DISTRICT ATTORNEY, may God bless you for profiting from a vacant office with the corporation COUNTY OF ORANGE within Orange County!
without prejudice
If the property was going to be SO valuable, why didn't the developer buy it twenty years ago? How about the City? Oh, -you- took the financial risk - that is why it is YOURS.
Poor Developer; was in Grade School at the time. Poor City - made a committment to lock taxes at lower rate for a then good reason; now they want to change it back?
It is your property. Not the City's.
So many problems with the idea it isn't worth any more time.
There is just NO way this can be a bad thing. Conservatives, who have always been in favor of property rights, when seriously thinking about what has been decided, will enter apoplexy immediately. When real estate swindlers and speculators, many of whom helped to buy the last presidential election, figure out how they have just been hosed, the stuff is going to hit the proverbial fan! I'm loving this.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
is nothing new in history. I wonder how much the city of New London is getting from developers? I doubt the _real_ goal is to create jobs.
If they tried to force me off my property for some BS like this, I would dump as much chemicals on the property as I could! Antifreeze, Oil, you name it. They want it? Let em deal with TOXIC WASTE! Then when they take posetion, turn them in the the EPA!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
I think it would be in the best interest of the Federal Government and the District of Columbia if the land where the SCOTUS building sits were put to other use. It's a prime location for a condo or mixed-use development of retail shops and residences. I mean, do those guys really need to work in a location where a 1 bedroom apt. could easily rent for $1000/mo? The work that the court does could just as easily be accomplised in a low-rise flex office space in Chantilly, VA. All they would need is some minor security upgrades.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Welcome to the United Communist States of America. For the greater good of the society, all your properties belong to us!
So, how much do think it would cost in bribes to have 5 houses siezed so i could open a small chain of internet cafes on the east coast?
Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for "park support." Id., at 345-346. At oral argument, counsel for respondents conceded the vagueness of this proposed use, and offered that the parcel might eventually be used for parking.
I say you just tell all your neighbors to come over and dump there trash all over the place. Then seal the windows and doors and fill the house with cement until it is full to the attic. Let it dry over night and then turn your lovely home over to the city. That'll teach em.
Before we dive into hair-splitting, let's read the law. I know the 5 of the 9 "Justices" can't be bothered to, but it's going to be your house.
"nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Notice that said "public use", not "public good". If they build a school or a road, I get to use it. If they build a jail, unfortunately I may get to use it, but the last time I checked, periodically helping myself to the municipal bank accounts was *not* something that is generally allowed.
Therefore "public use" is not "public good". The reason eminent domain exists in the first place is so that wealthy land owners can't just buy up land and lock up your right to travel. In this case the historical sense of "eminent domain" has been turned on it's head. Now you are not allowed to keep your land if some public official decides that pillage is the word of the day and sells out some crooked developer.
I think the unintended consequences of this may be really scary. I'm thinking some retired Vietnam Vet or even older WWII vet is going to decide to go proactive on a municipal official, developer, underpaid cop, construction worker or whatever.
You couldn't pay me to be a municipal official, developer or other sad sack who is going to be involved in this. Someone is going to apply a 2nd Amendment solution to this problem and it won't be pretty.
One of the most interesting things is that not a single "liberal" sided with the common man.
"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants
and patriots. --Thomas Jefferson"
The court needs to be abolished and replaced with Supreme Juries. Each case/review/whatever sees nine of us selected at random and flying out to Washington to deal with whatever the problem is.
This is unworkable if you want to maintain justice. At least judges are supposed to be knowledgeble of the USA Constitution, most citizens aren't nearly as knowledgeble. Having said that I am a strong believer in Jury Nullification and a Fully Informed Jury.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't understand why the Democrats aren't speaking out against this. :(
[o]_O
Sadly, much new development is just a redistribution of wealth since apparently most developers CAN'T afford to even do thier development w/o tax breaks and other incentives from the municipalities involved. If they could afford the true cost of the development, they could likely entice the owners out of their realestate with fists full of cash (or a nice home).
We are living in a real-estate bubble (commercial and residential). Development costs are being held artificially low by government subsidy (interest rates and otherwize) and pricing is being held up by speculators (borrowing on margin to try to get returns higher than the simple interest rate). Maybe one of these days we will pay the piper (like Japan did) and I'll predict it'll make the dot-bust look like a blip, but as long as the government is manipulating things, not much will be changing...
...feudalism. Get your serf on.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
$250,000 (cheap at half the price :-)
I think that I wanna sell mine, now that one of the cornerstones for the foundation of the USofA, respect for property, has been rendered 'null and void' by a precedent setting judicial decision.
Nobody's safe from the developers since they always 'amiliorate' a neighborhood (and flip the housing once or twice before anybody gets to lay down on a couch.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I wonder if the Senate had failed to obstruct new scotus judges then the decision on this issue might have been different?
Its a sad day. Seem like we are on the road to aristocracy. eg. Mexico .
So here's what supporters use as justification: The land owners were offered, on average, $1.7M for .1 acre of land - surely enough just compensation that they should have sold to the development company...
My answer: NO! OBVIOUSLY, the market price for that land was higher, or they WOULD HAVE sold. "Just compensation" in a free market society (which we seem to be growing farther and farther from even aspiring to) is what the market will bear. Did they try $1.8M, $2.0M, $2.5M? At some point it economically makes more sense to build your little mall somewhere else. Can I (actually, I should probably use the words "Should I be able to" here!) go into a store and say that I don't like the $2 price tag, I think the bread should cost $.25, here's your quarter? Of course not! The store owners (used to) have the right to set their price where they wanted it. If they wanted me to shop at their store, they lower it; if they want me to go across the street, they raise it. I guess the real market economy lesson here is that's it's cheaper to hire lawyers than to compete on the open market for property.
I think this kind of thing was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment - you know, the whole militia thing that presumably would be comprised of private citizens. I personally would not see any moral problem if these homes were protected by using lethal force against police evictions or rolling bulldozers. Hell, I would feel compelled to join them, despite never having fired a weapon and living in a new-development neighborhood that is unlikely to be affected by this ruling any time soon. Of course, such a militia would be stopped by overwhelming force, with all the limitations imposed on personal firearms. And though I have never posted here on the subject of privately-owned arms, I firmly believed in some limiitations such as those against assault and other military-grade weapons - until I read the article and realized the shear rediculousness and inherent unconstitutionality of this ruling.
I contend that this, like so many other issues which fall in favor of corporate interests, are due to the control large companies have over the media. The voices and arguments that would have changed opinions and made elected/appointed officials more weary over cowling to special interests never get heard from. This is because the one device which guaranteed important news couldn't be stifled, and people had a right to petition to get alternative voices heard in mainstream media has been eradicated. This is the Fairness Docrine.
If the Fairness Doctrine were still being enforced by the FCC, groups that opposed this issue would have had a better opportunity to educate the public on this issue. Virtually anything that happens these days, from the Downing Street Memo, to ignored world crises, could be re-prioritized in the hearts and minds of people and their leaders if we had the Fairness Doctrine back in place.
Will they wait for the mall to open and then a month before it's to open, go and torch the joint?
Fuck no.
Will they hunt down the plutocratic bastards who are responsible for their misery and chop them up into dog food?
fuck no
What will it take for the american public to wake up to the fact that the state and the corporations that own the state and the weaselly weasels who run the corporations that own the state do not give a flying fuck about them or their rights hopes and aspirations?
The american public won"t do shit rs
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
yes, its been a good year for ironic twists.
Microsoft switches to PowerPC, Apple switches to Intel, and now a "liberal" interpretation of the Constitution means my property rights can be trumped by any developers who manage to convince local governments that my house would be better for the public in the form of a walmart.
Funny enough, the dissenting judges appear to mostly be conservative in nature from what I've read of their rulings.
If I understand the process correctly (sorry I'm not USian) there are usually TWO opinions offered following a supreme court ruling. The senior justice who voted for the ruling writes the concurring opinion. The senior judge who voted against the ruling writes the dissenting opinion.
Suppose, hypothetically you had two parties (lets call them the Liars and the Thieves) who controlled the appointments to the SC. Of the nine seats, through various machinations, lets suppose the Liars appointed seven including the two most senior justices.
Suppose, again hypothetically, that 6 of those 7 vote as a block and the most senior justice always votes against the block? The end result is that the Liars would always win AND would always get to write BOTH opinions.
Naturally such an act is strictly hypothetical. Since the justices are supposed to be non-partisan, engaging in such behaviour would certainly be unconstitutional and could be argued to be an act of high treason. So you can be absolutely confident that your president and SC judges would never, ever do such a thing and any resemblance to to oherwise inexplicable voting patterns would just be a coincidence.
SO = Supreme Oligarchy
What most people don't know about the "gang of five" who consistently rule in an activist fashion is that they are ALL not the first picks for the job... they are all tertiary in the list at the time of their appointments, and generally their preceding nominees were filibustered by senate liberal democrats for being "not liberal enough" well... for those who think liberals are for the little guy... I think you need to reassess that view now... seize the little guys stuff, under the guise of more tax revenue.... the season is now open on your private property...
The 5th Amendment has been repealed... welcome to the new Oligarchy...
Impeach the Justices, anyone? ROLF!!!
Hey, this sort of thing is right up the alley of communist left wing wackos.
Aren't you guys supposed to be posting stuff in support of this, and how this is a good thing?
I have no choice. They took my house in the US.
Vote for Pedro
I can't believe the justices could do thi...
#$%#@NO CARRIER; SEIZED BY STATE.
Unfortunately, words tend to change over time, especially when one group tries to garner the goodwill that had been previously associated with it. The original poster is using 'Liberal' in the modern sense of the word. Specifically, he's refering someone who holds a socialist/Democratic Party worldview.
This sort of thing just makes me wonder what Constitution they are interpreting.
You said "here" but didn't say where it is. Where is your "here"?
Well, that about puts an end to private property rights for the USA. Individuals and corporations stand ready to get overrun by government forces at any time, for any reason.
All of America is now a Guantanamo camp.
Well, it is only fair since the USA is turning into a police state ruled by hidden government organizations. After all, who needs citizens when mere surfs and subjects will do?
Good Bye USA - Hello Nation-Slave State.
Now, can the government decide that, for the good of the government, it can take all the I.P. of Microsoft?
If Starbucks wants to knock down city hall and put up a coffee shop, can they do that too?
- so much for citizens rights, you weren't using them anyway...
In the US, you say you own your land? Stop paying your property taxes, see who REALLY "owns" the land.
The major split in the R party (paleocon traditional conservative versus what came to be called neocon) occurred in the 64 election cycle, when the eastern establishment NWO globalist Rs sabotaged Goldwaters campaign on purpose. They threw the election to get Johnson in so that he would take the heat for Nam while they made the money off of it. It suceeded for them, too, BTW.
I worked that election, got a huge education then in power politics.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
People will take up arms and stand their ground. At least I hope they will. After a few people are shot and killed over this things will change..
I assure you that I damn sure would shoot to kill any asshole that tried to stroll in and take MY private property.
Say hello to Mr. 12guage and Mr. AK-47....
There are other approaches to this problem...
- Enact state laws - by ballot measure if your state allows it, or by legislation
- You can also put a measure on the ballot to amend a local government's charter (or whatever they call it in your state) to restrict them from doing this.
The thought of that possibility in my area occurred to me 5 years ago when the proposal came up to extend the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) line to San Jose. Part of the line would be built 500 feet from my house. I've been to many of the public meetings about it (including one yesterday) to keep an eye on them. I have a domain and web site sitting ready if we need to mobilize the neighborhood for a defense.But they seem to be well-behaved in this case. They aren't proposing removing any housing. The once-proposed Hostetter Station would have been a block from my house and a threat to the neighborhood. I let them know about that. It was dropped from the plan because there's nowhere to build the station without demolishing lots of houses and 2Wire's corporate headquarters. Some businesses seem to be in bad spots and they intend to pay for them relocate. The biggest problem is for FedEx, who has a building near the San Jose Airport where they want to put the Santa Clara BART station and a people-mover to the airport. That should be interesting to watch...
So I don't know if I've had an effect. But I've been watching so they can't take me by surprise. If you have anything like that in your area, you should do that too. If you have to fight back, you can have a lot more effect earlier in the process.
That quote had nothing to do with real property rights, it had to do with people who CALLED slavery a "property right".
When it comes to false peoperty rights, we could really learn a lesson or two about copyright and patent monopolies being called property today.
This is absolutely hilarious. You liberals are actually surprised that a group of liberal judges is re-defining a Constitutional amendment. Those of us on the other side of the fence have watched activist judges do the same thing to the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion (not freedom from religion) clauses for some six decades now, slowly twisting them like a pretzel until they are now commonly interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what they say and intend. Leaves a bitter taste, doesn't it?
Like any government power this one can be abused. the only way to stop this is to pay attention and react when it happens.
But the last time the government abused one of its powers you told me to calm down.
I cannot believe this. What were the justices thinking? In what America is the state justified in taking personal property from an individual and giving it to a corporation? The betterment of the community? I don't care if my house is the eyesore of the neighborhood. The state has no right to claim my property. I can see no reasoning for the decision except that the SCOTUS answers to no one and there was money involved.
Where do we go from here. Land is just a form of personal property. How about your car? You know, my company could use some cars for my sales force. My neighbor has a pretty nice Mazda...
It occurred to me today that you only own something to the extent that you can defend it. One of the homeowners said he was not leaving.
This will end badly.
This coutry is going to hell! Where money not people rule the day! I think the original founders of this country would be sickened if they knew what the US has become.
its definitely not the fault of the left wingers as some of you say.. c'mon now.. 14 houses that were apart of a little community were all bull-dozed down simply because they were building resort fitness and yatch club.. if thats not a republican reason to do something, I don't know what the hell is.. in THEORY the democratic party can be a wonderful thing.. I personally like the idea of spending a small percetange of my yearly wage to be directly invested back into our country for the benefit of all individuals.. i.e. medicare, public transportation, roads.. the problem is, the majority party (republicans) spend our money so fucking poorly.. they contradict themselves when they say "we don't need more government!" yet they make all sorts of bullshit laws influenced by religion, and spend our money like kids in a fucking candy shop..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Where everybody and his brother has a hand canon in his night stand and still has the good ole (and crazy) pioneer spirit and is thus willing to defend his land with his life? :-) ...
Imagine this scenario: "Yo, fellas, LA Compton has been 0wnZ0r3D by WallMart. They want to build a parking lot and a waste dump. Please move out. Here's 1000$ for yer cardboard trailers each, now bugger off."
I mean isn't this a really stupid idea to pull this of with US citizens? We germans are used to this (our goverment doing crazy shit like siezing property for the common good) as we believe in law and order, the compentence of authorities (a german kind of extreme wishfull thinking) and the common good.
But americans? No way. Very bad idea if you ask me.
Talking about not just pissing of the entire middle and far east but also your own people
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I used to think conservatives were the ones who stood for fiscal responsibility and small government with limited powers.
"It can't be just compensation, your Honour. If the house were worth the market rate to me, I would already have sold it".
Wikileaks, no DNS
One thing that I really think is missing here is consideration of the actual words of the amendment.
There is plenty of room to debate whether or not eminent domain was used in this case for the "public good". (I would contend that it doesn't.) But that doesn't... shouldn't matter! The constitution states for public USE, not for public good.
Saying that a new research facility for a private corp to research better penis pills is for the public GOOD is one thing, but claiming that that same privately owned research facility is a public USE of the land is a big fucking stretch.
Unless the result of eminent domain is land that is directly used by the public (for a public service), then it's unconstitutional.
(And I'm not even going to start on my complete disagreement with the "default" perception that more tax revenue is "good" for the public. Everytime our government gets more money, we're more screwed than we were before.)
It's fitting this ruling came out while "The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is now showing
at the movie theaters. Okay, okay, bad joke.
This is a crummy ruling, and I was hoping it
would go the other way but I'm not suprised that
it didn't. The SCOTUS ruled the same way in some
what similar cases in the past. For example, the
Hawaii land reform law of the 1970s was meant to
change the situation where 100 land owners owned
nearly 95% of the privately owned land in Hawaii.
This law was held up, i.e, the state was allowed
to force the sale of land that was privately owned
to other private buyers. The SCOTUS doesn't see
a lot of difference between these two cases. On
the other hand, while Sandra Day O'Conner ruled in
favor of the Hawaii land reform law she was dead
set against this one.
The thing to do now is to pass laws in state
governments to prohibit this practice or at
least severely restrict it. Some states already
explicity prohibit this, some allow it, most are
silent on the matter.
Ok, RTFC. (Read the freakin Case): http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-10 8.ZS.html
As the majority opinion points out, this isn't as revolutionary as so many conservative slashdotter's are making it out to be:
"Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking..."
However, "[n]either of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case."
What the court is asked to decide is whether the taking of property by the State could "be executed pursuant to a 'carefully considered' development plan."
Furthermore, the concurring opinion states that "A court applying rational-basis review under the Public Use Clause should strike down a taking that, by a clear showing, is intended to favor a particular private party, with only incidental or pretextual public benefits...."
So, what is the new law here? That the State can condemn private property under a genuine community development plan.
Not so unreasonable...until you're the one who is losing your property. But, you do get paid something approximating the fair market value...so, at least you can get a new house...hopefully. *Sigh* I wasn't that impressed with the dissent's opinion...but I do agree that private property rights are being eroded slightly. All the more reason to strengthen State Taking's laws...
Actually the difference between conservative and liberal seems to be how you want to pay for big government. Liberals want to pay for it with taxes. Conservatives want to just borrow the money.
As I said what part of government is bigger is also different, conservatives, Reagan Conservatives, or Neoconservatives want big law enforcement, big military, and control of what people do in their private lives whereas today's liberals, ie NOT Classical Liberals, want big social programs. At least in the US
FalconShould there be a Law?
Now what's my fair price? It's not that I don't want to sell, in fact, I forsaw the coming values, and "invested" there on purpose. So, you don't need to condem my property to get it, you just need to pay my price.
If you make me take a lower price than what I think is "fair", how is that different from the government coming in and cutting your salary just because "you make too much"?
If you make the old lady down the street who doesn't want to sell, take less than I get, how is that fair?
Sounds like the basis for another suit... with a differnent mix on the court maybe it will change again.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
They also showed how one guy in Arizona managed to get the city to give him some other guy's property because he wanted to relocate his business to a busier corner.
These people are scoundrels!
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
BEGIN BLOCKQUOTH {
1. Capitalize only proper nouns. Never capitalize whole words.
2. Do not use roman numerals.
3. List in columns series of more than three dates, names, or numbers.
4. Adopt short, clear labels for the parties.
A. Use part of the name: Acme Consolidated Bank & Trust Co. = Acme
B. Use its real-world capacity: bank (no quotation marks).
C. Do not use their lawsuit capacity: plaintiff, respondent.
5. Be concrete, not abstract: car wreck, not vehicular collision; moved, not filed motion.
6. Caption the document helpfully, but briefly.
A. Exxon's Answer
B. USF&G's Motion for Summary Judgment
C. Allied's Cross Action against Chase
7.
[...]
"The Most valuable of all talents is never using two words when one will do."
Thomas Jefferson
} BLOCKQUOTH
Thus concludes transmission and further saith naught, executed on this twenty-third Day of the sixth Month in the Year of Our Lord and King Jesus two-thousand-and-five;
Gregory-Thomas: Mundt
without prejudice
Just paint a flag on your house. When Congress passes the ban on flag desecration, won't these eminent domain folks find themselves in a pickle when they try to bulldoze your home!
It's like I always say, when live gives you lemons...squirt them in the eyes of your enemy!
I love how everyone is trying to point the finger at that one person everyone hates in the White House. It's funny to see that such a drastic move to take away from the people and give the greater of the people happen to be on the other side of the White House. It seems traditionally that leftists, are more socialist and take what they think is what benefits the entire group. This doesn't surprise. What does surprise me is that some people here seem to assume that someone is going to knock on your door and say, "get out, we're bulldozing in ten minutes." I myself go either way in politics, but I feel this is a good move as it just reasserts eminent domain guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, that gives power to our leaders to open discussion on whether or not a low income slum area, should be bulldozed for pretty high rises. There is discussion first, and the people who are involved in the loss of land have some input when it becomes discussion. Jesus people, you make it seem like the government wants all of your land whenever they want. Stop reading conspiracy theory web sites. An excellent quote sums up this decision by the court: "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or one."
This does indeed seem to be the current effective difference between the two.
Of the people by the people for the people doesn't mean squat, anymore. It should read " For the money, by the money, give me money, and I as a elected and bought official, will sell all their souls'
If you haven't seen it yet, have a look at the Australian film "The Castle"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/
It's about a government-sanctioned corporate grab for land (buying up houses to allow for an expansion to the airport).
The film is a classic here in Australia. Worth seeing.
And that's a GOOD thing. How else would we be able to have doublespeak?
Doublespeak or newspeak.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's one thing to take away commercial land from someone, but it's entirely different to take away residential land. I can understand the government buying someone's commercial land against their will at 100%, or maybe 110% cost, but under no circumstances should they be permitted to buy a piece of land that is 100% residential.
You mean condemn and seize not buy right? That's what eminent domain is about.
Isn't Scalia the one who was also endorsing orgies?
In that case we need more like him.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Why "screw" the bush judges -- the last 100 posts have just covered that there 2 democrats for this, 3 repubs for it, 0 democrats against it and 4 repubs against it. kthx
Clinton took away the saftey (sic) net that many people relied on for food.
If your statement was true then people would be starving to death. I challenge you to produce a single news account of someone who has starved to death because of poverty.
Furthermore your post reeks of self-contradiction. You condemn Clinton for reducing Welfare, and then you state that your ideal system would be an armed survival of the fittest contest. You come off as a terribly unbalanced person.
This is a no-brainer. When government turns against the general public we use the arms that we have to defend our homes and lives. You all need to stop talking and start loading.
It's because of stories like this that I will never, ever get married, or live in any place that has common law marriage.
The whole system is fucked. I opt out. I tell as many people as I can to do the same. You got no guarantees in life so lets be honest about it and quit with the fucking voodoo ceremonies.
The government and the church are two of the last people I want involved in my sex life. FUCK their broke-ass attempt at regulation.
So in the future when housing is at a premium, I could go into an established suburb, buy all the houses, build high rise apartment blocks and coffin hotels and then the residents can come back and live in them. That would lead to a much more efficient way to house residents, lead to increased tax flow, etc. Hey, just what the "public" needs.
Is the judgement broad enough to allow my city to tear down a Wal*Mart in favor of building affordable housing, if the chain store is found to be adding a disproportionally low portion of its revenue back into the community?
Kevin Fox
your myopic and simplistic world
Come on. I was trying to provide a handy reference for those who don't follow the opinions of the Supreme Court judges. Furthermore, O'Connor is without a doubt a waffler. Look at her language in the affirmative action cases. She has no problem with making totally contradictory arguments just a few years apart. But I'm sure you're aware of this.
A question I have in this (and previous more common eminent domain property takeovers for public construction) is how compensation is determined for the seized property. Is this determined by an independent third party real estate assesor? Based on the property taxes you've paid? Or just whatever the government decides to give you?
Don't like it? This administration sees otherwise. (They picked them) So much for the MYTH of a free America.
The thing I found the most interesting in this opinion is O'Connor's dissenting opinion. Yes, she is a swing voter. That is not the interesting aspect. What is intersting is that she wrote the majority opinion in HHA v. Midkif. Midkif is the most robin-hood-esque eminent domain cases you will see. Not only did the rich land owners lose their land, their taxes paid for the entire process. The HHA gave loans to any of the lessees who wanted to purchase their landlord's land. A true double wammy.
In any event, in Midkiff O'Connor wrote that the transfer of fee title to private lessees in Hawaii was a public use and did not violate the taking's clause. Here, O'Connor has flipped and seems to take the other side. What constitutes a public/private use is an extremely fine line.
No, its the "conservatives" who are most consistent liberal voices on the court. The conservatives (Thomas, O'Connor, et al) are about conserving traditional british liberalism---whereas the "liberals" are about conserving statism.
You're buying into a canard if you think that the conservative position is "states rights". The conservative position is more often "explcit federal rights, defer to the states when heighened ambiguity exists."
So... your definitions of conservative and liberal are all screwy. By this day and age, statists ARE conservatives too.
If you escape the bubble of contemporary US politics you begin to understand that
1) liberal and conservative are not opposites
2) that a conservative should describe anyone who is defending a tradition or is at least initially biased against change.
3) that a liberal should describe anyone who supports individual rights
4) that a libertarian is a very particular kind of liberal
5) that leftist is not necessarily liberal but might be very statist
Then:
6) that Breyers, Ginsburg, et al often vote the statist position and only on a handful of sweeteners do they do vote to protect individual rights
7) that Scalia, Thomas, Connor, and Rehenquist often vote in favor of broad liberties and when they do not, it is not because they are opposing the liberties but because they oppose the Federal government dictating too many details.
State's Rights / Federal Gov't Defer to State-Level Authority: (the determination of the Conn. Supreme Courts were deferred to); this is "classically conservative" position
True, but the conservatives only really utilize this when they want to. And the majority opinion doesn't make the argument that this right is not incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. So while this could potentially be a conservative argument, it's not actually being made.
Strict Consideration of Law and Precedent: this is rather specific to how the SC conducts its business, but I think it's also fair to say that they used "conservative" reasoning in their approach (i.e. they saw no need to disrupt tradition or precedent, and so sought to follow it)
The principle of stare decisis is by no means a conservative one. In fact, the liberals tend to utilize it more than the conservatives (and Thomas, a staunch conservative, tends to ignore it). You're right that conservatives tend to be strict constructionists, but if you read the dissent by Thomas I think you'll see an argument which is based in strict constructionism. Thomas essentially argues his dissent based on the fact that the constitution uses the term "Public Use", and not "[P]ublic [P]urpose". The argument is about as strict constructionist as they get.
Favoring the General Public Good over the Individual Public Good: (the specifics of the case were examined and held that the development planning process was handled above board) - favoring the public good is generally considered to be a liberal position, but in the majority opinion there was little emphasis on the "public good" beyond the state's right to determine what this means.
I'm not sure the term "Individual Public Good" makes sense, and I think this issue was the key distinction which separated the conservatives from the liberals (the rest is just a matter of the judges using their tools to justify the decision they want to make). The way I see it, the issue is who gets to determine what is best for society, the government, or the individuals/free market. In this ruling, and the liberal point of view, the government gets to decide. In the dissent, and the conservative point of view, the individuals/free market decide.
Gov't may Not Interfere with Private Property - this is a classically conservative position
And is essentially the flip side to the previous issue.
Federal Gov't May Override State-level (local) Issues - during the Civil War this defined the "Republican" position - however, since the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's this has been re-framed as the liberal position
One could argue that this was more of a party switch between Republican party and Democratic party than a philosophy switch between conservatives and liberals, but regardless it is the case that the conservatives of today tend to favor a much narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment. That said, there are many fundamental rights which conservatives and liberals alike agree are covered by the 14th Amendment and cannot be infringed by the states. As for the other argument in favor of state rights over the judiciary, it takes the form of judicial restraint, and it's fairly hard to argue that this one isn't used only when it's convenient.
Proposed Amendment/Clarification of Existing Legislation - ("Legislating from the bench") - recent propaganda to the contrary, "activist judges" are liberal, conservative, moderate, or whatever.
I suppose this is the second part of what I said above: judicial restraint vs. judicial activism. But when it comes to things actually enumerated in the Constitution, there are only a few instances of judicial restraint despite them, and they seem to me to be procedural moves and nothing more. The only one that comes to mind right now is the Guaranty Clause. Off hand I can't say whether that was a conservative or liberal opinion, though.
I suppose what bothers me most about this decision is the tax issue. People in most locales pay real estate taxes for the entire term of their property ownership. Consider this: If you pay off your mortgage, you still have to pay real estate taxes. If you fail to pay the tax at any time, the government takes your property. Paying this tax is essentially the same as paying protection money to organized crime. Now, the government can *take* your property for private use, using the argument that the increased taxes benefit the community. So, tax more tax revenue (Ie Protection Money) collected, the better the community? Take this decision a little further down the slippery slope and what you find is a bidding process for how much protection money an individual is willing to pay for the privledge of owning property.
Slashdot submission mods... I told you if not first, among the first within the first 14 minutes of the story coming out. I had other verified sources if anyone else chose to ask about them, (admittedly I should have disclosed them, but this falls within my "plan to take over the United States" essay I wrote once in high school. © and I don't want to get fvcked over something I wrote in the past being used for today's current practices. I'm not joking. Ask Mrs. Pullen that taught English at Germantown High School in Germantown, TN.)
I would just like to thank you for getting this out at least faster than the slower, obsolete, later medium that the media broadcasts would normally do to keep you slowly appraised.
/end karmawhoremode -lmr
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
to act politically when you are working 1 job at walmart to pay for child care, and another job at the 7-11 to pay for gas, rent, and medicine for your kid who is sick from being in daycare? Most of the people for whom this is a problem work so hard they don't have any time for political action.
i am so very tired....
Except that the Constitution enumerates the things that the government CAN do. If it ain't in there then we the people have not authorized the government to do it.
Unfortunately neither the government nor the courts see it that way. As it is now governments can almost do no harm to their way of thinking. That is if they think.
FalconShould there be a Law?
OK, although I do not like this decision, but I think there is a bigger issue. The way it works now, taking property by eminent domain is decided by a few politicians, usually by some council or other assembly vote.
Now, the same legislative body cannot levy property tax (at least in Ohio) without an election. So why can't eniment domain issues, which are relatively rare, be voted on by the public? I mean, if it really is for public use (or benefit), should the public have a say in it?
Personally, I would think that an eminent domain election would certainly be better for both sides. Whether it was for highways, schools, or commercial projects, at least there is a process (or scruntinization) that seems more true to the public interest than the agendas of only a few politicians.
Coderz 4 Life
Not if the rich ban guns.
There is a reason for the 2nd amendment.
There is a reason why socialists want the 2nd amendment appealed.
All you base are belong to the city.
We here in the US get the government we deserve.
/. poster is in America (for the sake of argument) then between 30-50% of the people posting didn't vote, yet well over 30-50% are somehow suprised by this... We elect people with poor ethics, shady backgrounds, terrible voting record because AMERICANS ARE TOO FUCKING LAZY TO PUT ANY EFFORT INTO PAYING ATTENTION TO THEIR ELECTED OFFICALS!
c lose(streams[all])
Rick James says: VOTE BITCHES OR SHUT YOUR HOLE!
Statistically if we assume the average
close(streams[stdout])
close(streams[stdin])
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Now we, the average american citizen, knows how the first people (American Indians) felt. Their lands taken by Eminent Domain. Now we are being touched by the same sort of people. Nothing has changed. Back in the time of Burr, the then "Whigs" (republicans) only wanted the rich land owners to be able to vote. Thats their next step.
In my experience reading supreme court cases through law school, it tends to go like this:
Ginsburg - liberal
Souter - liberal
Stevens - liberal
Breyer - liberal
O'Connor - conservative/swing
Kennedy - conservative/swing
Rhenquist - conservative
Scalia - conservative
Thomas - conservative
> A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against
> all reason and justice,
Since this sentence would apply with equal force to the bulk of what the feral government now does, i.e. takes from one private citizen in taxes and dispenses to different citizens based often on whim, it can't be acknowledged as a valid criticism of the state. Most of the current government is based on exactly this notion, of taking from A and giving it to B.
Democrat delenda est
yes, they would be able to compete for jobs at rates lower than $5 an hour.
The problem is they still couldnt afford to live in this country. (ex buy a house, eat, clothing)
People on the current min wage cant really liven decently so why would we be better off fighting over pennies?
Yet, peeling through my caselaw notes, I can give an example of when the United States, not (confederacy) "The Unitd States of America", neither the Independence known in the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, seizes property and the course of events intending the seizure of property; whereas it is not a seizure at all, but a schism that brings forth a paradigm shift to pursue the contested property in a name of the United States that serves motions as a corporation "United States": read on:
Corporations are the cause for diversity of citizenship; most seizures on land are done through the corporate mechanism, and none EVER expected "United States" to be a corporation of the United States. Whoever said the United States is not to blame or given greater standing is halft true, when it is "United States" that is doing all the dirty work. "United States" is not a synonym for the United States; think of it as in the antonym and hominymn of transmittals from a man's mouth.
Real parties in interest must have more interest in the property than a loaded gun and a false court order.
Obviously, "United States" is the corporation name of the United States when it attempts the same thing; see 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15)(A), "United States" means a Federal corporation.
There you have it in a nutshel; whoever has the controlling interest may have a say in the matter; eminent domain appears to be effective if the people are the controlling interest and not "United States" corporation or its related "State of **" corporations that say you live in unaffirmed illegal two-digit corporate "State" postal trademark XY alongside federal [Zone Improvement Plan]. There are more corporations, such as those claiming to be a "City" within a city and a "County" within a county. I believe those to be positive law jural societies. Here in Westminster, it is the City of Westminster that sends you the Ticket to the Freak Show if caught parking in a City-graffitied "NO PARKING" area.
without prejudice
Needless to say, the little guy loses to the commercial developer this case...
We didn't lose to the commercial developer, we lost to the fucking government! Maybe if we hadn't spent so much time worrying about Evil Business, we might have noticed that our government was reaching critical mass.
Business isn't the problem. Business don't have the power of eminent domain. Business don't have police and armies. And most of all, businesses don't have court systems arbitrarily deciding to take away the unalienable and natural rights you were born with. Only government does that.
Business didn't do this, the fucking government did this. And it wasn't the federal government that started it either, but some pissant little city council with too much time on their hands. For all your bitching about Bush or Kerry you never noticed that all the real tyrants in the US are your neighbors on the city council.
Yes, there are many businesses that lobby and court the government. But don't blame the addict, blame the pusher. Political power wouldn't be for sale if the government didn't put it up for auction to the highest bidder.
We're screwed now. This is a SCOTUS ruling. There's no one we can appeal this do. The only option we have to get our rights and property back is another revolution. The problem is that no one else but me cares. As long as the stop the Home Depot from building on the empty lot down the street, you guys will let the local government do whatever the fuck they want.
Emigrating to Iraq or Afghanistan is starting to look better and better. At least they have a future.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The catch is, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Government to "take private property for public use" in the first place. The authorities granted to the (Federal) government are explicitly enumerated, and the Constitution is quite clear that rights and powers not granted to the government are reserved for the states and the people.
And then the 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Constitution down from the Federal government to the state and local level.
So despite that snippet of wording from the 5th Amendment, a good case can be argued that eminment domain is completely unconstitutional, period.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
> That was the exact problem with the Bill of Rights. Some people think
> that they enumerate ALL the Rights protected by the Constitution, and
> that's simply not the case.
The ninth and tenth Amendments should have been more than adaquate to the purpose of clarifying that. The problem was when the Congress, aided by the Supremes, simply ignored those two Amendments and our remote ancestors didn't kill the fuckers. Then our grandparents not only didn't kill the fuckers they added some more amendments to give the feral government even more power. Then our parents didn't kill the fuckers as they buried the last remnants of the old Republic. Now it is our fault for allowing the situation to continue, i.e. we are bitching on slashdot instead of shooting the traitors.
p.s. Some of our great great grandparents DID try to do something about a Federal government growing without bound. They are now hated and reviled by all 'right thinking people.' Think carefully about starting another revolt, most of the masses like that check that isn't justified by anything in the Constituition, don't know it is illegal and couldn't care less if they did.
Democrat delenda est
in soviet russia, people get more respect and privacy then in united states.
I defy you to name even two cases where the Patriot Act has been abused.
I defy you to name two instances where the PATRIOT Act prevented a terrorist attack or wherein a terrorist was successfully prosecuted because of the PATRIOT Act.
Have you *EVER* actually read the Patriot Act? If not, I implore you to do so before commenting. The Patriot act has it's flaws, but the idea that the Bush administration wants to use it to declare martial law isn't one of them.
I admit I've only read small parts of it but nobody in congress read it either before voting for it. As for the Bush admin, my memory is bad so I may have this wrong, originally Ashcroft was against the act.
I am, as I have pointed out in previous messages, a Conservative. The Republican party is moving more left every day, leaving a huge vacuum behind. On the other hand, the Democrats are now approaching realms that Karl Marx could only dream of. Thomas Jefferson founded the Democrats (as the Democratic-Republicans, how ironic...) but he would be considered a "Whacko Conservative Nut-Job" today. I'm sure that whatever is left in his tomb could be used as an alternative energy source if we could just tap the spinning after today's ruling.
I'm neither a rebel nor a yankee, er in this case a conservative nor a (neo)liberal. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, ie a Libertarian. Thomas Jefferson wasn't only a Democrat-Republican, he was also a Liberal, today's Libertarian. He just as the LP, and I do, believed in a small and limited government as well as Liberty! Much the same with the other Thomas, Thomas Paine who wrote "Common Sense" which seems to be getting less common today.
"These are the times that try men's souls"
FalconThomas Paine, 1776
Should there be a Law?
Late in the American empire, literacy rates declined so much that by the early 21st century, 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court justices could not even read well enough to follow their basic job functions and user documentation in the Constitution. Faced with military and economic pressures in the Middle and Far East...
...let's apply this to SPAMers, domain and typo squatters.
Domain parking? Better do it outside of the USA, or it'll be mine biatch...
"If it's my house, my business, my whatever, it's mine. Not yours. Not New London's. Not whomever else's. I worked for it. Mine. It's utterly irrelevant how much you're prepared to pay for it if I don't want to sell. It is black and white."
My content! Illegal Copyright Violations:When the public pulls an eminent domain on a content producer without the coresponding compensation.
here is the complete PDF file with the ruling, I found it from The Supreme Court website.
Although I live in the other side of the Atlantic, I wrote about this issue on my blog. I read most of the ruling, and I didn't like it.
Here's what happened:
I wrote this overview quickly from my memory after reading most of the 04-108 ruling. I encourage you to read it, too, as it contains many interesting references to other court rulings too.
You're almost there AC. Think 'intellectual property' and you'll begin to see it. Next week's headline will probably read something like "Government seizes Linux kernel to secure Microsoft Windows operating system for the public good." The patent/copyright/trademark game is OVER. He with the most money wins.
I have no reason to suppose that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else. -- John Locke
I'm laying down in front of the bright yellow bulldozers out the front of his house making way for a new bypass as we speak. What I am surprised at is that he is down at the pub drinking beer and eating peanuts!
Sounds more like you need to do this in Israel, Israeli bulldozer kills American protester
FalconShould there be a Law?
"But I don't want a bypass!"
"Whyever not? It'll be a very nice bypass..."
I never thought it would actually happen.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
Need I say more?
You're absolutely right. A hyperspace bypass would have been considered public infrastructure, and therefore an allowable reason to use imminent domain, even before this ruling was made.
Didn't you get that notification that your planet was being leveled to make way for the hyperspace bypass?
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
FalconShould there be a Law?
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
I thought the 5th amendment was the right to not incriminate yourself in a court of law. In this case I think that both CNN and my news source are confusing which amendment it should be, which is the 4th Amendment, which states that we have the RIGHT to SECURITY of our person, *PROPERTY,* and papers. Who's screwing up which issue, again, thru misinformation?
Your trusty news media, of course.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
FOR THE PEOPLE : WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REALLY SAYS ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS
"From Kirkus Reviews
A strange sight, indeed: Popular sovereignty is taken seriously in a discussion of the Constitution. In this populist interpretation of the Constitution, Amar (Law/Yale) and Hirsch (a freelance writer and graduate of Yale Law School) insist that ``we the people'' denotes a collective entity, not a collection of individuals. They contend that viewing the Constitution ``through the prism of the individual'' has overemphasized the majority-rule/minority-rights debate and has been reinforced by the tendency to dissect discrete passages rather than interpret the document as a whole. We have come to assume that ``rights'' refers to individual rights, ignoring the politically more fundamental conception of rights held by the public as a whole. Amar and Hirsch respond to this deficiency by exploring the implications of a broad reading (not to be confused with loose construction) of the Constitution regarding constitutional amendment, juries, and the military. In this volume's most controversial argument, the authors maintain that the specific procedures for amendment outlined in the Constitution do not preclude direct amendment by majority vote of the populace. The logic is inescapably democratic: If popular sovereignty is meaningful, how could the people be deprived of the right to amend the Constitution? Similarly, Amar and Hirsch find inalienable rights applicable to juries and the military, with straightforward implications. Peremptory challenges eliminating a candidate from jury service, for example, are not consistent with either the citizen's right to serve or the public's right to try the accused. Access to military service is no less a citizen's right or a public concern, consequently the authors argue that blocking the entry of gays or women into the ranks is indefensibleif the rights of ``we the people'' are truly paramount. Consistent and contentious throughout, Amar and Hirsch offer an analysis that should threaten both liberals and conservatives with a commitment to popular sovereignty both like to avoid. -- Copyright ©1998, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved."
There is really no need to worry about this ruling at all, because the Martians are going to seize the entire planet in 5d2hr40min and 46...45...44s.
Or, take a .600 Nito Express and drop him in his tracks!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
That's even more scary than Bush as president, and that's bad. I wasted my vote in 2000 by specifically voting against Bush instead of for who I wanted to vote for. This tyme, in 2004, I voted for who I wanted, Michael Badnarik
FalconShould there be a Law?
Check userID "NRAdude"
This post is elite and not modded favorably either.
....but I pay my taxes on my property, and I paid out the ass for this home and 1/3 acre of land it sits upon. I'm STILL paying on it. Who the hell is the goverment to tell me that I have to lie down like a dog and let someone take over that which I haven't fully paid for, and owe a debt on?
I'll enact my fourth amendment rights, and secure my property, with or without guns. To hell with lawyers, to hell with anything else. I have my rights, and I'm not about to let them get taken away.
As an FYI, the concept you state is predated... better check your high school government book again.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Sadly, a Saipan wage of around 22 cents an hour may not even pay for the gasoline required to drive to that job in the U.S. given the cost of our cars and insurance and gasoline. Even funnier -- 22 cents is even less than bus fare in most american cities... so you might spend half your day just earning enough to ride the bus to and from work each day! 22 cents an hour would never approach the cost of a weeks worth of health insurance. The supplemental cost for me to be on my wife's healthcare is almost $90 a week (after my job was off-shored I was unemployed for over a year, and have just now started part time work, hence no health coverage of my own). Two [long] days worth of our current minimum wage labor would just cover the supplemental rate; At the rate of an Indian call center operator of $2 dollars an hour it would take you more than a week to earn a week's insurance. That's a real winning system you've got planned there (and that's not even unskilled labor).
Good thought experiment though, not having a minimum wage would totally fuel the labor movement in America. Our politics would be vastly different. Lets all imagine this for a while.
I'd love to hear your quips belittling these serious issues. I can't wait to hear why unskilled laborers shouldn't be able to afford health care! The whole point of a living wage is to provide food, shelter and clothing; that would be awfully hard to accomplish on less than $5 a day in America -- well not without some huge public or private welfare apparatus.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
And so were Rehnquist and Scalia.
My little liberal brain can't handle the strain of being on the same side of any argument with them... Aaargh!
building a larger stadium on land siezed under eminent domain? http://espn.go.com/mlb/bush/saturday.html
He also made money another way:
Deal #1: The Oil Business: Rewarded for Losing Money
Like his dad, Junior struck out in Texas and founded an oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc., with $20,000 of his own money. (Arbusto is the Spanish word for bush.) The company foundered in the early 1980s when oil prices dropped (and his dad was Vice President.)
The 50 investors, who were "mainly friends of my uncle" in Junior's own words, put in $4.7 million and lost most of it. Junior claims that investors "did pretty good," but Bush family friend Russell Reynolds told the Dallas Morning News: "The bottom line was there were problems, and it didn't work out very well. I think we got maybe 20 cents on the dollar."
As Arbusto neared collapse, Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation bought it in September 1984. Despite his poor track record, the owners made Bush, Jr. the president and gave him 13.6% of the parent company's stock.
Spectrum 7 was a small oil firm owned by two staunch Reagan/Bush Sr. supporters -- William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. These two were also owners of the Texas Rangers and allowed Bush Jr. to purchase a chunk of the team cheaply; he later sold it for over 24 times what he paid.
Within two years of purchasing Arbusto and making Bush Jr. president, Spectrum 7 was itself in trouble; it lost $400,000 in its last 6 months of operation. That ended in 1986, when Harken Energy Corporation bought Spectrum 7's 180-well operation.
Junior got $227,000 worth of Harken stock, and a lot more. He was named to the board of directors, made $80,000 to $100,000 a year well into the 1990s as a "consultant" to Harken, and was allowed to buy Harken stock at 40% below face value.
He also borrowed $180,375 from Harken at very low rates; the company's 1989 and 1990 SEC filings said it "forgave" $341,000 in loans to unspecified executives.
So what did Junior do for all this money? It's hard to say exactly, but things happened for Harken after Junior came on board:
Falconit got a $25 million stock offering from an unusual bank with CIA ties,
it won a surprise exclusive drilling contract with Bahrain, a small Mideast country, and
an Arab member of its Board of Directors was invited to White House policy meetings with President George Bush and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.
Should there be a Law?
This may have been said earlier, but I did not have time to read thru 1000+ posts. Local govt may decide that someone else may have a better idea of what should be done with your property. Doesn't that strike you as something out of an old Western movie? A major landowner that holds all the cards in local govt wants to expand his domain and the peons try to stand up to this? Reminds me of "Pale Rider". Also, As long as there are property taxes, you don't own "your" property. You are renting. Just fail to pay your taxes once and find out. You will be evicted, forcibly.
Really, how often is it the liberals who side with State's Rights?
Because that's all this decision really is. The Supreme Court didn't say that it's good if states or municipalities sieze property to build a strip mall.
What the ruling says is, that the definition of "public good" does not belong to the federal courts. Stevens wrote "local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community".
How can I argue with that? If I have to wonder who chooses what is best for my community, I sure as hell want that decision in the hands of someon *I* vote for. Not someone appointed by some president thousands of miles away who doesn't know a damn thing about my community.
Is this specific case a good use of eminent domain? I don't think so. But I don't live there and I didn't vote in the local elections that elected the people who did make the decision.
The constitution clearly gives the govermnents, federal, state, and local, the right to sieze property through eminent domain for "the public good". All I see hear is that the supreme court rightly left that decision at the local level.
If the people living in the community don't like this, they have all the power in the world to change the people who made the decision.
I guess maybe more people should have been voting in local elections all along.
With a big check in your hand? These people were offered on average $1.7 million for (again, on average) .1 acres of land.
For a total of 15 homes, the city alotted $1.6 million. SOURCE
Well, this is slashdot...
3 3 )
Can any Sovjet-American go to microsoft now, take their anti virus software for Linux that they don't publish anymore (so they don't make a penny of it) and publish it myself?
( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/22/17512
Or what about recordings of an artist that aren't published?
k2r
I think "nuance can be important" is the most inciteful sentence I've read in this whole discussion. I agree. In fact, in Supreme Court opinions, I think nuance is vital. In 50 years, a single sentence in a footnote may be the most widely quoted part of an opinion.
First of all, as others have pointed out, the Fifth Amendment does not allow the government to take private property for private use at all. When taking private property for public use, it must sometimes compensate the owner.
Past public use cases Court mention in the opinion:
Berman v. Parker (1954) The Court upheld a Washington DC law that allowed the government to condemn and take private lands in blighted areas, compensate the owners, and then lease or sell the land to potential developers. The Court held that renovating a slum was not a "private purpose" under the Takings Clause.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) In Hawaii, a small number of landowners owned almost all the land. Almost everyone else was renting. The Court upheld a Hawaii law that let long-term tenants ask a state authority to condemn the land they lived on, compensate the owner, and then sell the land to the tenant. Again, the Court held that this process was "public use" under the Takings Clause.
At first blush, it looks like the ruling in Kelo v. New London, that the government can condemn and take houses in a non-blighted area, compensate the owners, and give them to a developer for redevelopment in an attempt to rejuvinate the town, doesn't seem to be much of an extension of the other two cases.
On the other hand, I get the feeling there's some maneuvering going on, here. Notice in Hawaii Housing Authority how a very similar interpretation of public use allowed the government redistributed large concentrations of property to "the little guy," the same one who lost in this case. Also, keep in mind that property doesn't just mean land: shares of corporate stock are also property. Property rights include things like how you're allowed to use land, too.
On the third hand (the Vorlon hand?) the Court's willingness to defer to the legislature seems to give governments a lot of power. I haven't decided yet whether that's good or bad. The answer may wind up going pretty deeply into why a society chooses to enforce property rights in the first place, and who would be likely to have that power if the government didn't.
So who defines "adequate compensation?" If I bought land, built a home with my own two hands, and watched my kids grow up playing in my back yard it would be worth much more than market value to me.
I just decided to write the below story for everyone. Started writing 9:30PM PST and the postmark will conclude how quick a similar fiction can be manufactured. Onward, though Fat Bastard!
... Goatse man. "Is that where may baby whent?", asked Fat Bastard, but it was too late (strikes "The Pose"). Faster than Linus Torvalds can type "killall -TERM mozilla" that giant eyeless cranium reared its face and begin its squinting match with Fat Bastard. "I'm gonna eat yuh if you don't quit staring", yelled Fat Bastard.
Fat Bastard is walking. There is a huge zoo between him and his destination. The only problem is the zoo is five square miles of territory. The zoo is full of dangerous animals, including ticket-witches demanding you pay $50 just to walk through and not to look. Fat Bastard is overweight; he has a heart disorder, there are dangerous zoo animals in his way, he can't walk all the way around this hog-leg designed zoo, and decides to claim Eminent Domain.
He first tumbles through the slave processors demanding money to see the hidden delights of smelly animals eating food in cages: Woooo, ahhhh! Dangerous animals! Fat Bastard proclaims that the only way to rid the danger to the public good, is eat the dangerous animals. "Get in my bellayyy", yells Fat Bastard. Zoo keepers run to the gruesome scene, angry, and demanding then "Unhand our monkies! No, not the penguins too! Nooo!" In a frantic fray of undelight, the animals are declared dangersous and one at a time are cooked on a gas lamp and smuggled into the manifolds of intestinal fortitude within Fat Bastard. "These monkies could be carriers of HIV", mumbles Fat Bastard. In a last resort, acknowledging defeat, the Zoo keepers yell "We'll be back with lawyers" and flee to the Administration OFFICES.
Fat Bastard at this moment is finishing off the Polar Bears and is moving to the Lions den when in come the Lawyers. "What's this we hear about you having Eminent Domain on Our Zoo?" ask the Lawyers. Fat Bastard plays a quick toot on his bagpipes as intermission, then cheers, "This place is dangerous to the public good." "Where's the warrant?", ascert the Lawyers. Fat Bastard cheers, "I declared Eminent Domain on the paper it was written on, how do you suppose I got the kindling to smoke my cheese?" The Lawyers meet the same fate as the Lions...
Fat Bastard doesn't take his time walking through, knowing the U.S. Marshals could arrive any moment. He's at the rear gate, when standing between him and the exit from the Zoo is
GS "What?"
FB "Stop that now!"
GS "Stop What?"
FB "Doing that!"
GS "What?"
FB "I said that!"
GS "And I said What!"
FB "Hello are you listening to me?!"
GS "Hello to you too!"
Fat Bastard is pouting mad, sweating like a pig, and yells "EMINENT DOMAIN ON GOATSE!" The Goatse man didn't mind. It's happened to him before. "What aren't you afraid yet, assman?" asked Fat Bastard. Then smirks Goatse, "The last man that asked if I was afraid, I had him pull my finger." At that verry moment, Fat Bastard reached into the grips of the gaper and pulled a finger. And out came "Rob Malda". "Oh will you look at that, it's my baby!" and they all go home.
THE END
or is it? (10:09PM PST)
One thing only: That the true beneficiary was a privately owned business thats what. The public is only served INDIRECTLY. This was not property taken by the local government to build a school, sewage treatment plant, highway or utility. It was initiated by a land grabber under the careful disguise as "for the people". Forget the poor lady that was born in her home in 1908 she can go to an apartment somewhere. Will she have to get a mortgage, probably, b/c her property value was probably subpar with homes or condos in the area. Can she afford one, probably not!
This and many other of the decisions our government has been making are not going to affect us now in the ways that we worry about. Of course the Patriot Act abuses are minimal right now - they just barely made it illegal to talk about abuses, and at least for the time being the law is temporary. (I'm getting to an on-topic point here, stay with me)
The point I'm trying to make is that this decision isn't going to spawn a rash of outright abuse of the system starting tomorrow, but rather down the road when the decision is much less controversial. 5-10 years from now when the only precedent setting case is this one, it will be very difficult for another case to make it to the SCOTUS and fight it out again - even if that case has much more merit than this one.
Did you know that metal detectors in airports and ID verification was a temporary measure? It's been so long and we are so used to being inconvenienced that we forget how things were less than 15 years ago. People were bent at first, then they succumbed since there was nothing they could do, then they were happy guys with machine guns were at the airport, and now they look forward to the day when the airports have equipment that will let them see through your clothes.
The decision is worrisome for sure, but the overall complacency of the masses in our society is really the troubling aspect of it all. Sure, we all(or a lot of us at least) say it's unfair, but really are we going to do anything about it? What I would do is vote for a 19 year old idealist college kid running for any political office regardless of his politics just because I think she would be more trustworthy than anybody we have currently elected from the school board to the white house.
All animals are created equal... but some animals are more equal than others.
Getting around the fifth ammendment is easy. Just go over to the smithsonian and insert a line or two. Nobody will notice.
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public ^or private^ use, without just compensation ^or at least a coupon for a buy one get one free dinner^."
"It is very difficult to overemphasize quite how evil this ruling is."
Of course it is an evil ruling. So was the SCOTUS ruling that put the Dubya regime in power to begin with. The Florida law that prohibited a state-wide ballot recount should have been ruled unconstitutional, as should the arbitrary and capricious use of corporate-furnished lists of voters to be disenfranchised.
The rise of corporate political power has brought a corresponding diminishment of individual voter power. Arguably, this process started in ernest with Clinton in the White House, and Gingrich ("Contract on the American Middle Class") in the Congress. Government that is by and of the corporation, for the people, is more properly called National Socialism.
Now we have oil wars for freedom, open borders for ever cheaper labor, and a war on terror designed to leverage fear into a police state. The "Nazi" slur used in the Senate was appropriate. I am sincerely hoping that the USA still has democratic elections in 2008 -- right now that prospect looks like long odds.
..the whole US constitution down.. .. by /. effect.
There's no question that many Americans are so overworked that civic activism is not really feasible. Perhaps this was all planned by particular politicians? The work (or lack of work) of politicians has a lot more to do with how the economy works that I think most people realize.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
You are misinterpreting it; taking the property implies rent. Not to sell, give them a lease and keep your lawful standing; when the renter needs the property no more, or when you find a better use for it, evict them. You are confusing "Government", a fictitious person that can buy and sell, with an activity that everyone partakes in known as government. If someone needs to take you to court for property, then their ownership is questionable. See my previous post on the codified laws and how seizures may progress.
What I want to know is why so many people think they can get away with violating property ownership just by citing those amendments to the Constitution! If anyone had their claim perfected, they'd not need the federal benefit of the Bill of Rights that derives the foreign jurisdiction in a state. Has anyone actually seen an original Constitution of a church-state, without being modifed or "corrected" if you believe that is what the amendment seeks? Take a hint from the Constitution of the United States:
The question has always been what constitutes "public use." It is not always a simple calculus of whether private companies benefit first. For example, railroads would not have been built without this power of eminent domain, and those all clearly benefited private entities on their way to the public good. Land for roads, airports, and such are also routinely "taken."
And when wilderness is deemed "Federal" property and off-limits, everyone tucks their head in the sand thinking about royalty.
That said, I think that this idea that urban renewal (extending beyond a blighted area, which has been allowed for a while, for cleaning up slums and such) is a valid reason for taking, seems problematic to me. MBITLITF (My brother is the lawyer in the family), but it seems clear that this is a continuation of a trend to expand this power beyond what I would consider reasonable. Building a hotel and whatever else in the hopes that people will come to visit and thereby provide jobs seems just plain dumb, but the courts basically said that they can't make a ruling based on that; if the government thinks it is a good idea, that is good enough, and to overrule them would be a kind of judicial activism. (See, everyone hates judicial activism when it is convenient!)
Urban renewal? Blited areas? What is this trash talk about? A friend of mine just got kicked off His cattle ranch in Irvine, California by a corporation known as "City of Irvine". The deed, not senior title, said that no permanent constructions were allowed for the charter because of endangered Riverside Fairyshrimp, Native American-Indian artifacts and gravesites, ocean fossils, and horrendous phaultlines with visually apparent soil erosion about a cubit length. "City of Irvine", a juristic corporation, forced him off the land and had it re-zoned to allow closly-stacked USD 1.5-million mansions built all over the place. They were burrying telephone poles with concrete all over the place to "stabilize" the area from soil erosion. The Fairyshrimp, Indian artifacts, whale fossils; notwithstanding but to keep the poorer people from curing superior claim to the soil. There went the last family-owned cattle-ranch in Orange county, California.
without prejudice
So, who's ready to start a corporation and bulldoze the homes of John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer?
Sell shares of the company for $100 each. The investment? In an America that legally and creatively takes revenge on judges by using the judges' own rulings against them. The ROI? A value which tabulates in too vague and nebulous a manner to actually determine, but it clearly exists to those who still believe in the classical liberal (or slightly inaccurately, libertarian) foundations upon which this country was built, and from which we have greatly strayed. I think it's fair to say that investors in such a stock aren't looking (in this particular case) strictly to maximize their profit potential in the short-run (though those of us long-run watchers might be)...
After all, according to today's ruling, all one needs to prove to local communities is a greater degree of "economic development" (read: greater tax revenues to the tax-collecting local government) and voila, the power of Eminent Domain -- the power of the government to benefit the rich and powerful people and big businesses at the expense of the weaker and smaller people and businesses -- is yours!
Ahh, who doesn't love a fascist kleptocracy? That's basically what this ruling installs.
And BTW -- is this what liberals today think of when they say the left is defending our liberties (like in John Kerry's 2004 Presidential bid)? Bwhahahaha! What a goddamn lie. The left doesn't care about individual liberties and strong property rights any more than the right does...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
And you'll squeal like a bitch taking it up the ass without lube, when they come for your house.
Jerk off!
Too bad everywhere else on earth that I've been or lived, and that's a heck of a lot of the globe, is worse {sigh}. Costa Rica is looking better and better.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
...Berman v Parker? The court rules the land doesn't have to remain in public hands, as long as the use is "public". This is hardly a new issue. The government has been able to give your land to private parties under imminent domain for a LONG TIME. The 5th Amendment, like all amendments in the Bill of Rights was intended mainly to limit FEDERAL power. I.E. the public use clause only applied to the Federal government (See Barron v Baltimore). Only with the advent of the 14th Amendment (and not even then) did the Bill of Rights apply (in theory) to State and Local governments. While I disagree with the ruling, the majority was keeping more in line with the Constitution's ORIGINAL intent of leaving most of the decisions up to the states. I will agree that the whole PURPOSE of "judicial activism" was to rectify this mistaken premise, but to lambast the majority in this decision as "liberal" or "activist" is just plain silly. The answer to this solution is one of "State's Rights", the Libertarian's Darling when it suits them and their Curse when it doesn't. Don't want your state taking away your land and giving it to Wal-Mart? Lobby your state legislature (much easier than lobbying Congress, trust me) and have them pass a law forbidding your state from doing so. PROBLEM SOLVED!
so in this case 100 beats 15 democracy in action.
Yeah... no. Like most Libertarian nutjobs, you leave out a sentence or two: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -The Fifth Amendment Originally intended, that meant the Federal Government couldn't build a road over your house/farm/brothel without paying you first. As for the states... anything goes! They didn't specifically give up a right to change how they seized land for public use. Little thing called the 10th Amendment. Not too freaking hard to understand. To complicate your simplistic thinking further, the 14th Amendment, as interpreted by "activist" judges, did not mean the Bill of Rights automatically applied to the states. Nope, occured on a amendment by amendment basis. Silly, no?
In Soviet USA, enterprises have you (and your houses)!
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
Hardly. The position of the conservatives on the court (who opposed this decision) is that this clearly opens the way for "the rich to own all the businesses and property" precisely because "we're so close to the rich, government, and businesses all being the same."
To quote from the minority opinion of Sandra Day O'Connor, under the majority ruling:
"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."
Adding that: "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."
So, in fact, what the conservative judges worry about is exactly the possibility that this will be used to unfairly benefit the rich.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Only in America!
Someone who decides on both sides of the aisle is a waffler? This isn't the Presidency or Congress, it's a judgeship - one that requires a few waffles when it's necessary.
Get your Unix fortune now!
From my point of view (read "the following pompous analysis is mine") expropriation is one of this necessary evil at the fringe of what is obviously good or obviously bad (like every "make one suffer for the interest of a few").
At least, one needs a certain number of clear criterions to know when the border has been crossed and it is not acceptable anymore. And the nuance between "public good" and "private interest" is -- at least for my french leftist perception of the world -- fundamental. I can understand that someone turns berzerk if you kick him out of his nice cottage to build a McDonald and an Office Depot.
--
Go Debian!
As a european, I am absolutely suprised by the negative feedback on this forum. We here in Europe just finally start to understand that PPP (Public-Private Partnership) is inevitable for a healthy economy.
That's when a private company builds a structure that serves public good (e.g. hospital, dormitory, prison) and keeps owning it, renting the services to the local or national government for some profit for 25 years or so and after that the structure becomes public property for free or at a depreciated price.
Obviously, eminent domain argument must be possible to use for paid confiscation in such cases, because the gov't does not have enough capital to build all those structures at once, so they need to borrow resources from private companies in the above mentioned scheme, else many valid public needs would not be answered.
Now, one could argue, a new Wal-Mart for example may be just as useful as a new prison. If it is built nearer, some people will get work and the population will not need to drive an extra 2x15 miles to practice consumer religion, which has huge air cleanliness and global warming implications. Same applies for a new ramp for a new road or railway, even if it is privately operated.
If owners are given good compensation, there is no problem with this. Of course, compensation should be increased as the public good factor decreases. If public good is the only aim, owner should get market price no more. If public purpose is only 50% of the picture, owner should get 200%. Eminent domain should be banned for 33% or less and courts would get to decide what is the factor in each litigated case.
100 of 115 property owners wanted to sell to the developers. 15 people were stopping it.
No, 15 owners out of 115 fought it. It costs a lot to litigate.
But, it's good to know that you support prayer in schools, restricting abortion, displaying the 10 commandments in public, and oppose gay marriage.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
What's the value of their .1 acres as a proportion of the lifetime value of the assets to be built on that land.
So, fair might be:
(Total lifetime value the developed property)*(.1 acre)/(Total area of the development)= $$$
Why can they fairly command such a premium, well, cartels can do that. Economics shouldn't be a bitch just for the poor.
>the government shouldn't have the right
>to seize your land. no one should. no one
>at all...no reason is justifiable
No reason is justifiable? You should seek therapy!
Just consider e.g.:
2005:
Your house needs to be razored to make place for a heliport for the nearby hospital. You say no and every year dozens of motorists die because ambulance cars can't travel fast enough between the accident site and the hospital. In fact consider that your wife or son could be one of those motorists... Life is more valuable than property.
2036:
You own the only piece of land suitable for building a new early warning radar to detect and track the supressed orbit scatter attack ICBMs of the Taiko-Russian Empire. You think your house looks very nice and you don't want to leave it. Govt can't take it, USA remains unprotected and one nice morning the commies nuke the entire CONUS into one big crater. Everybody sucks big time, including you.
And people wonder why I want to get the fuck out of this horrible country the day I graduate college.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
If the goverment takes away your property to give it to a big generator of revenue now they have the legal backing to do so. You using your guns (do you solve everything with guns guys?) would be illegal and your ass will be put on jail.
But lets say that you defend your land with violence, you would have the police, and if you are really a wacko, the military, in no time, camping in your front porsche, you would be disposed off quickly, and your property taken.
This idiotic idea that bearing arms gurantess your freedoms is the biggest nonsense (it is the USian equivalent of Mao's littel red book I suposse) because it ignores a little detail: an individual against the goverment is powerless.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Private property, freedom, and capitalism are all closely related and mutually supporting. This is bad news indeed. I guess I'll retire in an area so unattractive nobody will ever want it. Unless, a new hazardous waste dump is needed. Dang another problem.
The fact that you dismiss the intelligence of the Justices
I don't dismiss their intelligence. I question their judgement and honor. They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Some of them seem to be doing their best to ignore it.
Like I said in another post, I am for strict interpretation of the constitution. You want to expand federal/state power, you should amend the constitution.
as well as case precedent shows you are completely clueless when it comes to the law.
What case precedence? I'm not judging a law based on other laws (common law heritage), I'm basing it on the constitution. Besides, the defending/prosecuting attornies would bring past precidences to my attention, if it was that important.
Would it only take me a day to make a ruling, if I was on the citizen consitutional jury? Depends on when you start the timer. I was meaning once all arguements have been presented. Within 24 hours, you'd have your ruling. I wouldn't have a huge caseload, that would be my only case.
For example: A guy brings before the court that the NFA restrictions on firearms are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. I'd agree with him. And there's even some case law that I'd look at. Why?
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
A new M16A2 is a military weapon. Therefore, it is a likely weapon for a militia. The NFA infringes upon the people's right to keep them. Therefore, it's unconstitutional. Heck, there was even a case where the court decided that short barreled shotguns, having no military use, can be regulated. Guess what they're frequently using to clear houses in the Middle-east?
Simple, yes? Kinda like the Raich case, where I would have found that, no, it's not interstate commerace, therefore the federal government can't stick their noses into it.
I don't read AC A human right
The rich will get the most benefit but this is an example where the government has one. They have successfully stolen a right of ours.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
If you look through the decision (and even the dissenting opinion, for that matter), the court seems to be saying that they are deliberately not setting a binding precedent here, but are saying that insofar as this particular case is a close call, and local government ought to know best what is and isn't a valid public use, that the Court defers to the judgment of the state and local councils and courts that considered the case before it did.
Even the dissenting opinion didn't call the takings for the whole development unconstitutional, but only for that portion of it that was going to be used for offices and leased parking. The rest, though it was going to be privately owned, would be publically accessible, and that was public enough for them.
The court went so far out of its way to defer to other bodies in this case, that all this does is move the more general battle down to the states. If a legislature wants to decide this issue for once and for all in their state, the door is still open for them to do so.
You see, you say conservative economic views, but individual liberty, lower taxes, reduced state control, liberalised markets are actually *liberal* concepts, not conservative ones.
Look at their actions in power. The Republican party aren't liberal, they don't believe in personal liberty and reduced interference from the state. The Democratic party aren't liberal, they don't believe in reduced state control, liberalised markets or particularly, personal liberty.
There are no liberals in America. It explains a lot of the legislation.
Deleted
MAKE YOUR TIME.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Please don't spread this meme anymore: "I'm powerless so there's no reason to even try." Boy, it's so untrue I can't even begin to tell you.
I started a grassroots political organization last year that has elected officials all over NYC either cheering or running scared; we came to within 18 votes in November of ousting this neo-con state senator in Yonkers/Westchester. A couple weeks ago he was the main obstacle to a bill in Albany that would allow women to buy emergency contraception (day-after pills) over-the-counter in case of rape/incest/etc. It's not a main issue for my organization, but when he heard that we were considering sending volunteers to his district to hand out flyers to his constituents, he not only dropped his opposition but actually sponsored an identical bill that was passed.
And that's just one thing we've managed to do, sometimes with hundreds of volunteers, other times with just a handful of 3 or 4 people, sometimes just one person.
See? I've made a difference, and so can you.
The truth is, most Americans spend an average of 4 hours a day watching TV. You could do a lot to save your country in those 4 hours. And none of the things you could do would take much more thought or energy than reading a book or writing a letter or picking up the phone. Saving democracy is not aerobics.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
This one goes right alongside Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Plessey v. Ferguson. It could be a long time before our property rights are respected again by local, state or federal governments.
So, what can be done?
Boycott any company that participates in this kind of robbery. If a handfull of Naderite loonies can get McDonalds to quit making the world's best-selling fries by griping about beef fat, then a company with a crunchy-granola image like Ikea should be susceptible to public pressure to refrain from throwing old people out of their own homes.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
O'Connor's first initial is S, not J, and O'Connor is a her, not a him.
So if a city or town decides their tax base isn't big enough, they can pay below market, buldoze entire sections and tough luck to the property owner.
Yeah - we've definitely come full circle when it comes to corporate dominance.
"The tree of Liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and Patriots alike." - Thomas Jefferson.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
When I was 8 years old after a long legal battle the CT state department of transportation eminent domained my Family's land and many of our neighbors. They wanted to build a highway that didn't need to be built and for which they had been expressly told by the department of environmental protection that they could never have the permits to build. Among other things we had a river in our back yard, 90% of the land was considered wetlands, and the property abutted Nathan Hale State Forest ( I'll point out some of the land for which was sold to the state at a deep discount by my grandfather who was/is an avid conservationist) My parents were given $180,000 for a house that was appraised at $280,000. Beyond the value of the property my entire extended family lived right in the same area (grandfather was a farmer who gave his land to his children) My aunt and her family lived across the street, and my uncle and his family lived next door. Needless to say my family was scattered after they took their houses too. Today more than 17 years later the highway was never built and the house which my father built with his own hands on land his father gave him sits abandoned. I hope the people in New London stand their ground against the bulldozers. And when the first officer comes to physically remove them from their land I'll be crying tears of joy if they blow his head off with a shotgun.
I thought I was pointing out antagonism on the part of the court. Like they were almost trying to say, "ha hA, You've gotta give up that call for states rights, fool, or admit that personal rights aren't important. Mwa ha ha" {twists handlebar moustache}
PPS: love your peer's sig. very apropos.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
"You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there."
:)
Heh, very apropos sig.
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Well I did it, wrote letters to my two Senators, my Governor and my state representative. Signed my name with a pen and will send them certified mail this morning. In this age of phone calls, E-mail, chat and text messaging hoping that a good old fashioned form of communication gets noticed. My anger goes beyond political ideologies. Common sense and decency has been violated the 5th Ammendment has been raped. My mother lives on a "fixed income" in California her taxes are locked in by Prop. 13. What is to stop cash strapped California from declaring Emmient Domain, kicking her out of the house then putting it up for sale so some one can move in at the new tax rate. Because at 77 years she wasn't paying her fair share of taxes. Be afraid, very afraid... I know I am.
I know a guy who, by agreement, took sole custody of their only child. He went to court so he would no longer have to pay child support.
Get this, the court ruled that he still has to pay his ex-wife for child support; in spite of the fact that his ex-wife doesn't support the child - he does.
Too bad the judge that is most likely going to be replaced next was one of the judges on the right side. No pun intended :)
Given the wording of the 5th Amendment, it's hardly clear that it affirmatively establishes eminment domain. And even if it does, that only proves that the Constitution is a flawed document, which is something we already knew anyway.
They didn't specifically give up a right to change how they seized land for public use.
You're operating under the flawed assumption that the states *had* a "right" to seize land in the first place.
Little thing called the 10th Amendment.
An amendment which states that rights not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States, OR the people. That hardly gives the States carte blanche to do whatever they want, under Federal law. "We the People" have some say so.
Not too freaking hard to understand.
So one would think.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
The origins of words don't necessarily have a lot of impact on their current meanings. The word "guy" originates from the name "Guy Fawkes," who conspired to blow up the British Parliament in 1605. Few people have compunctions about using the word because of that.
I see no problem with using the word "bork." It expresses a sentiment well.
(And I do appreciate your post with the Bork-Nixon history lesson)
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
Hey, at least they were compliant with the 5th Amendment, assuming hyperspace bypasses are not private projects.
Y'know, T. Paine would probably suggest that this is the perfect time for another revolution here.
... "I used to be with 'it', but then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' anymore and what's 'it' seems weird and scary."
-- Grandpa
you are full of Crap, provided you even RTFA. These the precisely the kinds of judges Bush doesn't appoint/
...and you would know this because he has appointed how many supreme court judges? How about engaging your brain?
I don't know, your post doesn't quite gel as sarcasm - you are utterly delusional aren't you?
Red Man say: See how you like being forced off land, paleface!
No wonder the US refuses to get involved and remove a genuine dictator in Zimbabwe... they were merely watching and learning for their own use how to evict those who don't tow the party line.
That, and there's no oil in Zimbabwe....
Expect many shootouts between "corporate" police and citizens defending their homes against corporate developers.
Enjoy your fascism, Americans!
Visceral Psyche Films
I believe the case was started in Connecticut, New London to be exact. There are a bunch of houses on the shoreline that the town wants to take, tear down and build a commercial complex. This is because they can extract more tax dollars and the developer convinced them it was good for the local economy.
These are the homes of tax paying and voting citizens, they are not the POOR but either middle to upper middle class citizens. Some have lived there for many years and they refused to sell their homes for even fair market value. The view is spectacular!
The argument for the town/state/government is being argued that it's to protect the poor. I mean why tear down crack houses and sections of town that are an eyesore when you can have beach front shoreline property for a steal! i.e. we can't take the shelter being used by the homeless and drug addicts.
This is ludicrous, take the boarded up houses and abandoned factories and tear them down and build the complex there! Revitalize and revamp the run down areas of town and you will improve the entire area. Ever see that Bank of America advertisement? They show BOA rebuilding bad neighborhoods into quality neighborhoods. If you ever travel to CT, be sure to check out the city of Bridgeport. This is where Donald Trump grew up. It's full of boarded up homes, there is an entire neighborhood completely boarded up. Drugs and crime run rampant. It's the armpit of CT! Trump wanted to come in and tear down the old rundown neighborhood and build a casino and amusement park. It would have created more then 10,000 jobs for the locals, not to mention all the contractors (electricians, plumbers, etc.) and all the local mom and pop shops that could spring up to sell to the extra people traveling in from NYC, etc. But no, only the Indians can have casino's in CT. We can't take the homes away from the rats and the crackheads! Oh no! we can't do that!
This comes down to government theft! If someone tried to take land that I fully owned (already paid for) and the only excuse is the betterment of the local economy and not society (not a new highway, not a new power plant, not a new school, etc.) then they had better be prepared for a gunfight!
This really pisses me off...
Who is John Galt?
Phredd - "I have found people tend to take you far less seriously once you start waving your genitals at them..."
reside in southeastern Connecticut, as I do. I formerly worked at a facility that was situated in the same neighborhood. The faciliy has since been demolished and replaced with a state park as part of the same "redevelpment" error ^H^H^H^H^H^Heffort. The neighborhood homes are definitely not "million dollar" caliber. The neighborhood was definitely run down, and many of the houses were (most houses in the neighborhood have long since been demolished) fairly called blighted. It was/is not a neighborhood I would let my daughter wander around in alone. But that is not a resonable excuse to take homes and give the land to a commercial developer.
The neighborhood had a broad ethnic mix, and many residents were older. Suspiciously, an ethnic organization, Italian Dramatic Club, a social club with around 300 members, managed an exemption.
You should really look at this wonderful web site for the facts: http://www.cottagecoalition.org/
I'm so sick and tired of the liberal bias on this site. Conservatives, true conservatives would never in a million years go for a decision like this. This has liberal written all over it! Why, you ask? It's an extension of the "transfer of wealth" ideas of the liberals. I've got no problem paying my fair share when it comes to roads, police and fire protection, defense of our country, etc. but that's where I draw the line. Anything else is theft, plain and simple. When money is taken from my paycheck and given to someone else to help pay for their retirement it's theft. If someone takes money out of my paycheck to pay someone else's medical bills it's theft. If I held a gun to your head and took your money, but then gave it to the little old lady down the street, my intentions might have been noble but it's still theft. The government does this crap every single day. Given this line of thinking, why not take private property to give it to some else? After all, if it increases the tax base and we have more money to help the elderly and the people in need then all the better! This is a wonderful idea that liberals everywhere should love! After all, what's the difference between taking money and taking property? There both theft, were just taking about the form of theft here. Hopefully, finally, this decision will make liberals wake the hell up and realize how dangerous their ideas actually are. Under no circumstances should anything be taken from one person and given to another. Money or property (money is property ... if I earned it, I own it).
Look at our history people. It is the natural tendency of governments to abuse their power. That what the Declaration of Independence and the our Constitution is (or should I say was) all about! Limiting the power of government is necessary because that kind of absolute power is, and always has been, abused. The Constitution is one back fat stop sign. Laying out, clearly, what the government can not do. This can not, and should not, be a document whose interpretation "changes" over time. It means exactly what it says.
Oh, no say the liberals. "It's not fair that you earn all of this money and other people don't so I'm going to take some of it from you to help those in need". Well, what do you think is the natural extension of that idea? "It's not fair that you own this property and don't pay as much in taxes as someone else could pay if they had the property, after all, we've got to help those in need". Wake up liberals. Your ideas are destructive. You do not have the right, under any circumstances, to take what is mine and give it to someone else. Money or property. You don't have the right. Why? Because it can, will and is being abused. That's why. As noble as your intentions might be, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would be happy to donate my money to someone who was truly in need, and truly wanted to change things and to pick themselves up and get themselves back to a place where they can support themselves. I have and will continue to give to worthy charities. It, however, should be my decision. Not the government's. It's not their place. Once you begin to slide down that slippery slope where one person's money can be taken to "help" another, that persons land is the logical next step.
What is it with "you people" and your prejudicial overgeneralizations? Let me make perfectly clear what I am trying to say, because people like you need things spelled out for them: I don't like "our form" of free market.
While I'm not one of those Libertarian types who think a real free market would solve every problem (quite the opposite), what we have is even worse. It favors the rich and the powerful. Most of them claim they want smaller government, privitization of everything, no regulations, less taxes, no government interference, and so forth, but that is not true. They want all the benefits of government to accrue to them and not have to pay for it. It's hypocritical in the extreme.
But that's just like "you people" to gloss over the legitimate complaints of others with condescension and ad-hominem attacks because everyone knows that people like you are too stupid to come up with rational arguments.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
To the highest tax bidder.
You will be compensated! 50 cents on the Dollar for your home's worth.
Before we storm the capitol, maybe we can consider this ruling in this light:
The ruling seemed to say that the Federal government does NOT have the authority to prevent a local government from seizing private property for whatever reason.
This would seem to leave private property seizure descisions up to local governments - this would seem to give the states more power which I think is a good thing.
Less federal power and more state power - what is wrong with that? Your state legislators would presumably have the authority to create a law PROTECTING the private land rights that SCOTUS declined to protect via FEDERAL law.
I would love to see Tennesee and Alabama get the soverinty to enact their crazy anti-science education laws. I simply wont live there! Just as a Swede could hardly stomach Italy's form of goverment. The closer we get to breaking up the union, the better!
That was 39 minutes of your adolescent life you won't get back basement dweller. ... And a couple of mine.
Genius on ending with the "or is it?" Must have just watched Phantom Planet or some other bad 50s sci-fi movie.
Just when I'd gotten used to browsing at -1 so as not to miss the truly well-thought comments (and I don't mean FP!), this gets modded +5.
A tiny bit of my faith has been restored. But only a tiny bit.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to throw up my hands in defeat. I am simply stating that I do not know what the process is for this type of thing here and asking for people who have greater understanding enlighten me.
I've always understood that if an unconstitional law is passed, the supreme court would be the check/balance on enforcement of that law.
However, when the supreme court does something unconstitutional, I don't know/don't remember what the check is in place of that. It's been a long time since high school.
I hate freedom! I for one welcome our up and coming American dictator ship. I look forward to having my personal property taken from me...
Seriously, we need to head over to Connecticut or whever they are doing this, or EVERYwhere they are and tie ourselves with chains. Something hard... like adamantium because at this point the government has made clear it cares nothing for personal liberty.
*sigh* This is one of the darkest days on America. Rather than being attacked from the outside we are destroying ourselves like a virulent plague bent on suicide.
I cannot even type about this without ranting... okay, gotta go.
I am "vaguely" a socialist and I am rabidly against gun control.
The two have nothing to do with each other. Ask the Swiss.
The Democrats and Republicans in this country are both the same with slight differences having nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism. The parties are more alike than different, and they are alike in the fact that they are heavily authoritarian .
Uh, I would know this by evaluating all the other judges he has appointed so far.
You know, I don't expect to see Ted Kennedy appointed to the Supreme Court during George W. Bush's tenure in office.
But you were just Trolling anyway.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
From what I'm seeing, the responsibility is passed back to the local government. The one that's elected by, umm, local citizens?
So the real response to this is to remove the bribe-taking politicians and put in ones that will respect the real meaning of the crucial words "public use".
I don't agree with the ruling but at least there's a response to the situation.
And thus the point.
Nevermind.
Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
I own land and a house, and I'm not allowed to vote. Next question?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I would know this by evaluating all the other judges he has appointed so far.
If you think who gets appointed to regular federal courts has much to do with the politics of who gets appointed to the supreme court I have a bridge to sell you.
Our private property is already forcibly taken away from us every single year in the form of income tax.
Where is the outrage against wreckless government spending? This has a far larger negative economic impact than a few houses in Connecticut.
However, I don't think the abuse in in the Supreme Court. The city made a very good case in passing constitutional muster. It wasn't just "we can make more tax revenue" as people have been crowing.
This is a problem that should be dealt with at the local level. The Supreme Court should not be the venue where city redevelopment plans are argued. People's laziness and apathy about becoming involved in the local democratic process should not be used as justification for engaging the highest court of the country. If the people of the city didn't want this to happen, they could have stopped it. If there was so much corruption that they got steam-rolled, they could recall every goddamned one of the elected officials. Government doesn't always work, but it is subject to consent.
Are you saying federalism and the Bill of Rights are incompatible? They seem to work pretty well in concert to me.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
This discussion does not belong on /.. I come here to read the latest news for nerds (or is this consedered the 'stuff that matters'?). If you're looking for a political discussion, log into your favorite national news outlet - the NYTimes has a nice (and also left-leaning) forum for such topics.
In Arlington, TX, the voters approved by I think 52%-48% a plan to increase sales taxes to attract the Dallas Cowboys from the nearby city of Irving.
....
Guess what neighborhoods they chose to buy out the land for the new stadium? Yup, poor areas of town.
The city will buy the land and lease it to the Cowboys.
Anti-Cowboy groups and affected landowners were all hoping the Supremes would make a sane ruling in this case. Alas, they did not.
Here's the kicker - since the land will be city-owned, there will be no city property taxes, no school property taxes, no county property taxes, no hospital-district property taxes, no
The rest of the taxpayers get to make up the difference.
The checks on an unconstitutional ruling from the court are twofold. As the parent of your post pointed out, impeachment of the justices from the legislature is one. The other is that the court cannot directly enforce its will. It must depend on the executive to carry out the ruling. We think that the executive is bound always by the court's ruling but this is not true. (and not often realized.) The executive is bound by oath to uphold the constitution. If the court's ruling is unconstitutional in the considered opinion of the executive, then he (she some day?) does not simply have the option to, but rather the duty to prefer the direction of the constitution over the ruling of the court. This may sounds like too much power now given to the executive, but remember that if the legislature agrees with the court and thereby reasons that the executive's orders are contrary to the constitution, then they have the authority and duty to impeach the executive, with the help of the chief justice of course. The point is that each branch needs at least the passive support of one other branch to do its job. It is now up to us, the people, the ultimate political authority of the land, to put enough pressure on the Congress and the President that they will do the hard part of there job. That is, grow a political spine and hold the court to its oath before the constitution.
Despotism is hard to define clearly, but it can occur in any form of government.
A fall to despotism brought down many a civilazation. then they suffer, and try to rebuild and the cycle repeats....always has. ben franklin predicted it.
Nader wants a quick fall to despotism because he wants his side to rebuild. Bush wants it too, possibly because he is part of the fall, or maybe because the people behind him are thinking just like Nader. (some do) This is why Nader and Bush essentially worked together. Both wants to rebuild asap---but must tear it all down first.
Congress has no authority over the matter.
If you want to restrict eminent domain you need to pass laws in the state legislatures.
Clear, Dark Skies
Isn't historical revisionism a wonderful thing?
I agree.
Jesus preached tolerance and for the right/responsibility of the individual to determine his or her own path to God. He also preached against the rich and powerful and instead advocated for the poor. He was without doubt a classical liberal.
Its ironic how modern conservatism has abandoned true christianity and has instead morphed into a justification of anti-christian policies of the "religious" right, where self-appointed clerics pass judgment on others in clear violation of the biblical tenant "judge not lest yee be judged" even to the extent of bearing false witness.
The only solace the meek (liberals) have as they await their opportunity to inherit the earth is the confort of knowing that most contemporary members of the "religious" right have lost their souls and shall ownly inherit eternaml damnation.
This is about eminent domain, which is the process whereby the developers pay off local officials in one way or another to force the sale of property when the current owners refuse to sell to them.
But don't worry, these developers and those who vote for them are bound for hell anyway. Jesus was quite clear abou this.
First off, learn to spell eminent.
Secondly, if the Federal Government was given the EXPLICIT POWER to seize private land for public use (again, last sentence of the 5th Amendment), it gives them that ability no matter what you want to call it.
As for your second "point" (it pains me to call flawed logic that), the matter of whether individual states could seize land for public use was a matter for the individual states to decide. The Constitution was not meant to restrict or define the power of the States in regard to this issue.
Hey f00bers, you idiot, you should have caught that it's IMMINENT, not EMINENT, domain.
Normally I wouldn't be a Nazi about this, but details matter in Constitutional law, and if you can't be bothered to call something by its correct name, what makes you think you adequately understand the last sentence of the 5th Amendment?
What you are really complaining about is that she is not a rigid ideological zealot
No. I am not complaining about anything. I am merely pointing out that on at least one major issue, affirmative action, she has made completely contradictory arguments just a few years apart. I think that justifies the moniker "waffler".
I took offense with your characterization of Jefferson as libertarian because you called yourself (and libertarians by extension) fiscally conservative and socially liberal. From your statements, I'd argue that you are *not* "Liberal" in any sense of the word.
Maybe I should clarify terms I've used. By fiscally coversative I mean a small and limited government and socially liberal to me is liberty, notice they use the same word stem or root. There are too many laws and many of those laws on the books are too convoluted for the average citizen to understand. Most laws should be struck from the records, especially for victimless crimes such as drug and prostitution laws and those laws restricting private property usage without compensation.
In fact, like I said, I agree with about 97% of the libertarian philosophy. It's the last 3% that really bugs me.
I used to have problems with some Libertarian positions, the big one being on the environment. However the more I research and think things through the more I believe government regulations aren't the answer, instead the free market is more capable. As regards that the government is the biggest pollutor in the US.
My issue is that you (and I'm using the royal all-inclusive "you" here, not necessarily *you* in particular) want to *force* that lifestyle onto me by claiming you should have the right to go to the grocery store in the buff.
The store is private property and as such it should be up to the owner to make the decision as to whether clothing is optional, government shouldn't be involved. Of course with a grocery store there are good reasons to require cloths, like health issues. Obviously I don't support "clothing optional everywhere".
I've heard libertarians in favor of pedophilia.
I've never heard of anything like this.
But, I could be wrong. He may have had affairs with up to six women, some married, some not, and even one slave. So, maybe he did run around naked at Monticello, but I doubt it...
One thing's for sure, Thomas Jefferson was a contradiction. Though, as you previously said, he articulated some prudish notions he didn't actually live up to them himself. From some of my readings, while he was in France he had one or more mistresses, and had some children with Sally one of his slaves. And though he owned some slaves, in principle he was against slavery.
That entire run-on sentence is what I meant by "up to the state".
Ok, basically I agree power should be devolved, meaning power should start with people, then they makeup small local group, on up the ladder with each removed step having less power except with regards to defence, foreign policy, and international and interstate commerce.
I don't see how I could have been clearer. :-D
Politically much of what you say is the same as Thomas Jefferson's, Libertarians, and my positions, yet you "took offense with your characterization of Jefferson as libertarian" and said "I'd argue that you are *not* 'Liberal' in any sense of the word." I, just like the Libertarian Party, am very much pro liberty, and freedom, and small government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The ruling seems reasonable IF you accept the premise that the local government is working on behalf of the people it serves. If my memory serves me correctly, all politicians are corrupt, all the time, absolutely. They are only concerned with number one, and you and I aren't even in the running to be number two.
... uh .. friends?
So the danger of this ruling is that corrupt politicians will line their pockets through these types of takings for commercial use. The Supreme Court however does not have the power to alter law based on future corruption of local governments. How sad, since it would be so sensible to do so. We now have a carrot dangling in front of corrupt goverment, any guesses as to when they are going to start developing your backyard with their developer bribers^h^h^h^h^h^h
Life is like gravity. It sucks you down.
A man has decided to respond by fighting eminent domain with eminent domain:
m l
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.ht
Your entire comment is null and void because you didn't read the Fifth Amendment.
RTFFA?