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?
The problem is that SCOTUS has overruled states on issues before.
And they've upheld them in others, including this case. That's a problem?
You really miss the point of my post. I think it's a horrible decision.
But is it a decision out of line with states rights or the so-called "constitution in exile" movement so popular with slashdot legal beagles? Absoloutely not.
The cases I have provided, which deal EXCLUSIVELY with this issue show that:
#1: The goverment could take your land and give it to private parties for development before this decision and
#2: The 5th Amendment originally did not apply to the States.
This is just a clarification of existing law, not a radical change as some make it out to be.
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.
So how is allowing private enterprise to reform land under an (albiet specious) claim to "public use" anywhere close to a state run industry in a communist dictatorship?
Seriously now. All you free-marketeers should be cheering. No longer are those pesky old people with the flying saucer robots that lay tile keeping you from building your huge skyscraper in New York City.
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?
...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!
Slashdot Mirror
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?
And they've upheld them in others, including this case. That's a problem?
You really miss the point of my post. I think it's a horrible decision.
But is it a decision out of line with states rights or the so-called "constitution in exile" movement so popular with slashdot legal beagles? Absoloutely not.
The cases I have provided, which deal EXCLUSIVELY with this issue show that:
#1: The goverment could take your land and give it to private parties for development before this decision and
#2: The 5th Amendment originally did not apply to the States.
This is just a clarification of existing law, not a radical change as some make it out to be.
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.
The Constitution is kept at the National Archives, not the Smithsonian, doofus.
So how is allowing private enterprise to reform land under an (albiet specious) claim to "public use" anywhere close to a state run industry in a communist dictatorship? Seriously now. All you free-marketeers should be cheering. No longer are those pesky old people with the flying saucer robots that lay tile keeping you from building your huge skyscraper in New York City.
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?
...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!