Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court sides with private property against the federal government
Hotair ^ | 12/04/2012 | Erika Johnsen

Posted on 12/04/2012 5:25:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind

We've got to celebrate the freedom-endorsing little victories won by the Supreme Court while we've still kinda-sorta got it (one shudders to think of what what the highest court in the land may look like after four more years of President Obama), and the justices logged one in favor of private-property rights with their unanimous decision on Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States on Tuesday.

Per the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"), the question was whether a series of floods coordinated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers qualified as an actual compensation-worthy taking, since the effects were temporary in nature (although, according to the Court’s opinion, the authorized flooding disrupted the peak growing season for timber and damaged or destroyed more than 18 million board feet of timber over seven years!). As one unit, SCOTUS affirmed that the federal government’s actions did indeed amount to a taking:

What the government taketh, the government must pay for.

That was the 8-0 ruling of the Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case that involved water, water everywhere for Arkansas wildlife officials for several months a year from 1993 to 2000 — water released at a federal dam that flooded state forest land and made it temporarily unusable. …

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the full court except for Justice Elena Kagan who did not take part in the case, said the government’s actions did amount to a taking.

More from the Court’s opinion, delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Because government-induced flooding can constitute a taking of property, and because a taking need not be permanent to be compensable, our precedent indicates that government-induced flooding of limited duration may be compensable. No decision of this Court authorizes a blanket temporary-flooding exception to our Takings Clause jurisprudence, and we decline to create such an exception in this case. … There is thus no solid grounding in precedent for setting flooding apart from all other government intrusions on property. And the Government has presented no other persuasive reason to do so. Its primary argument is of the in for a penny, in for a pound genre… The slippery slope argument, we note, is hardly novel or unique to flooding cases. Time and again in Takings Clause cases, the Court has heard the prophecy that recognizing a just compensation claim would unduly impede the government’s ability to act in the public interest.

Sorry, federal government — your seemingly tireless efforts to restrict private-property rights got the smackdown, at least for today.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: propertyrights; scotus; supremecourt

1 posted on 12/04/2012 5:25:22 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I can’t remember, but ... isn’t this the second or third case Kagan has not taken part in ?


2 posted on 12/04/2012 5:32:30 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Color me surprised that any 0bama appointee would admit private property exists.


3 posted on 12/04/2012 5:33:04 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Working is for suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

OMG RBG sounds almost Constitutional!


4 posted on 12/04/2012 5:35:17 PM PST by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Government suing government. I guess we all win, or lose.


5 posted on 12/04/2012 5:37:05 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

FUFG!


6 posted on 12/04/2012 5:38:34 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I suspect that the liberal justices may have joined in because the Federal government flooded a state forest. That makes it an environmental no-no.


7 posted on 12/04/2012 5:38:35 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
Government suing government. I guess we all win, or lose.

As long as they are buggering each other, we, the people, get a little breathing room.

/johnny

8 posted on 12/04/2012 5:41:30 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t see how the government can mandate we buy stuff but can’t take stuff. How is the first one not a taking?


9 posted on 12/04/2012 5:45:31 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Try mining the coal under your farm if the land is designated “prime farm land.” Now, that is taking.


10 posted on 12/04/2012 5:49:29 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (In the game of life, there are no betting limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I hope this ruling puts a damper on the efforts of environmentalists to return rivers to a “more natural flow”, periodically flooding areas to mimic the spring flood patterns that are now under human control. Deliberately flooding land and damaging it is going to cost you. This should slow down the rewilding of our rivers.


11 posted on 12/04/2012 5:56:45 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
I can’t remember, but ... isn’t this the second or third case Kagan has not taken part in ?

There have been many in which she was disqualified because she worked on the case as as a Government lawyer.

12 posted on 12/04/2012 6:07:25 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The only thing unclear about this decision is whether the decision against "taking without compensation" prohibits the States from engaging in the same unconstitutional behavior; the State of California or rathers its army of petty tyrants, for decades now has fraudulently caused the zoning for land they covet to be changed to reduce its value before "purchasing" it (for the public good, of course"

That it precisely why the takings clause is in the Constitution, to prevent that sort of abuse!

Poor California, they might see a rash of claims for past unconstitutional crimes.
As I recall, just in the last few days, a family was cheated out of the use of their oyster farm (Marin County, California) using this ploy (or the lame environmental or "global warming excuse," after being in business for several generations.

Time to talk to the Pacific Legal Foundation.

13 posted on 12/04/2012 6:08:14 PM PST by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener
OMG RBG sounds almost Constitutional!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Or some obscure texting geek acronym?

14 posted on 12/04/2012 6:16:29 PM PST by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: publius911

Or perhaps a weapon preferred by a horribly congested terrorist: The Rogged Brabelled Genade.


15 posted on 12/04/2012 6:25:35 PM PST by Redcloak (Winter is coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I suspect that the liberal justices may have joined in because the Federal government flooded a state forest. That makes it an environmental no-no.

Micromanaging nature is fraught with contradictions, but the sanctimonious a*****e petty bureaucrats all practice industrial strength cognitive dissonance.
Damming rivers and NOT flooding national forests is also a no-no, depending on time and place.

No one ever claimed these ignorant, brain-dead losers are consistent.

16 posted on 12/04/2012 6:27:22 PM PST by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
As long as they are buggering each other, we, the people, get a little breathing room.

A very shortsighted attitude.

We, the people, pay exorbitant amounts to fund both sides of suits that go on for a decade or more, in some instances.

Job security. Screw We the People!

17 posted on 12/04/2012 6:32:17 PM PST by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: publius911
A very shortsighted attitude.

I don't even buy green bananas. I might not last long enough to enjoy them.

I maintain that paying a handful of lawyers to bicker is much cheaper than the damage governments can do to Americans by killing production, limiting freedom, and all those other things that governments do when they aren't fighting each other.

/johnny

18 posted on 12/04/2012 6:37:02 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Justice Elena Kagan who did not take part in the case

She must have had an important appointment at the nail salon. She certainly wouldn't recuse herself for anything approaching integrity.

19 posted on 12/04/2012 6:49:45 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I maintain that paying a handful of lawyers to bicker is much cheaper than the damage governments can do to Americans by killing production, limiting freedom, and all those other things that governments do when they aren't fighting each other.

I contend that eliminating our freedoms a tiny bit at a time, setting and building on precedent, is what makes all those horrible things you listed possible. The elected leaders come and go, but the bureaucracy lives forever.

e.g., take James Hansen at NASA...

20 posted on 12/04/2012 6:52:34 PM PST by publius911 (Formerly Publius 6961, formerly jennsdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So what, they still took it.


21 posted on 12/04/2012 7:10:40 PM PST by itsahoot (Any enemy, that is allowed to have a King's X line, is undefeatable. (USS Taluga AO-62))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I got this in an email == and it’s close enough to the subject to post it.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever, to 46 million people.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us “Please Do Not Feed the Animals.” Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today’s lesson.


22 posted on 12/04/2012 7:12:51 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius911
I see two options to that.

Launch and nuke it from orbit, or apply the Chauchesku solution.

The Soviet burro-craps didn't keep their jobs in the new Republics, unless they changed their tunes. And they had somewhat upset lots of people.

Question: Why does it matter what time the car arrives 10 years from now?

Answer: Because the plumber is coming in the morning.

/johnny

23 posted on 12/04/2012 7:13:22 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: publius911
No one ever claimed these ignorant, brain-dead losers are consistent.

Absolutely they are consistent in whatever is good for them.

24 posted on 12/04/2012 9:46:13 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party: advancing indenture since 1787.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot; SeekAndFind
Supreme Court sides with private property against the federal government.... on Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States on Tuesday.

How exactly is "state versus fed" in this case an example of Scotus siding with private property?

25 posted on 12/05/2012 5:48:08 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

26 posted on 12/05/2012 7:25:21 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: publius911
"..take James Hansen at NASA... "

Please.

27 posted on 12/05/2012 8:34:48 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Silly Roberts—Lesbos don’t get their nails done! :)


28 posted on 12/05/2012 8:54:14 AM PST by AbolishCSEU (Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Silly Roberts—Lesbos don’t get their nails done! :)


29 posted on 12/05/2012 8:54:21 AM PST by AbolishCSEU (Percentage of Income in CS is inversely proportionate to Mother's parenting of children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: knarf

... isn’t this the second or third case Kagan has not taken part in ?

It may not necessarily be because she recused herself. IINM, if a Justice is not present for the oral argument in a given case (for any reason), s/he may not take part (vote) in the decision on that case.


30 posted on 12/05/2012 8:55:25 AM PST by eddiespaghetti ((with the meatball eyes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: publius911

the State of California or rathers its army of petty tyrants, for decades now has fraudulently caused the zoning for land they covet to be changed to reduce its value before “purchasing” it (for the public good, of course””””

Such actions are called a ‘regulatory taking’, and Nevada County, California, tried such in the early 2000’s. They wanted to ‘inventory’ every square inch of everyone’s private property to look for ‘endangered species’ so they could tell you how YOU could use YOUR land and to what extent. They could have prevented me from using any of the pastures for my horses- both in part or in full.

I and others fought it all day until I made the statement ‘This is a regulatory taking’, we were getting no traction at the county supervisors meetings.

When I made that statement, all 5 of the supervisors turned pasty white. I explained in simple terms what ‘regulatory taking’ was to the audience on the open mic, which forced my comments to be part of the official record.

Then I told the angry supervisors that IF they were so darned bent on changing the traditional long term uses of my property—they could just write me a check for $350,000 within the next hour and I would be off the property—furniture-horses-trailers-vehicles-hay-bag and baggage within 10 days.

They were still pasty white, but they stayed silent.

I then told them that if they were not going to purchase my property for the above named price, they could stay the hell off my property for any and all reasons. Especially since they were planning ‘inventories’ of birds-bushes-bugs-everything on my 5 acres in a stealth manner—no notice. ANYONE could be on my prop0erty without my permission and I didn’t want that.

I knew that I had horses which would come running up to anyone looking for carrots and that such stampede would cause some elderly greenie to have a heart attack in my pasture. When I asked who would be responsible for such consequences, I was told I would have to pay for such a problem. That really got my dandruff up and the audience wasn’t happy, either.

They wanted to sneak onto my property without notice & then hold me responsible for any damage that happened to them. I wasn’t having it. They could own the property first, then they could inventory to their heart’s content.

We got ‘Nevada Heritage 2020’ rolled back, but it ended up in part of the Sierra Council 7 county regulations.

I could have happily shot all 5 of those supervisors, since they were also declaring THEIR property as EXEMPT from this inventory.


31 posted on 12/05/2012 9:19:55 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I can’t remember, but ... isn’t this the second or third case Kagan has not taken part in ?

There have been many in which she was disqualified because she worked on the case as as a Government lawyer.

And yet, she didn't recuse herself for the landmark Obamacare case, when she directly worked on that case as Solicitor General.

32 posted on 12/05/2012 9:28:58 AM PST by Purrcival (Four more years of OBAMA??????????? I hope this country can survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AbolishCSEU
Silly Roberts—Lesbos don’t get their nails done! :)

I must be watching too much pr0n. </sarcasm>

33 posted on 12/05/2012 10:04:51 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins
an example of Scotus siding with private property?

I think I noted that in that decision, they still took the property.

34 posted on 12/05/2012 2:28:18 PM PST by itsahoot (Any enemy, that is allowed to have a King's X line, is undefeatable. (USS Taluga AO-62))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks for the ping, Tex. This is interesting...


35 posted on 12/05/2012 5:09:30 PM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson