Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $44,938
Woo hoo!!! And we're now over 51%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Keyword: takingsclause

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Supreme Court Deserves Praise for Reversing Itself on Takings Clause

    06/25/2019 1:27:57 PM PDT · by Tolerance Sucks Rocks · 11 replies
    The Daily Signal ^ | June 24, 2019 | Paul J. Larkin Jr.
    Our constitutional system assumes that federal courts serve to remedy an injustice created by officials in the legislative and executive branches. Unfortunately, federal courts, even the Supreme Court, sometimes are responsible for creating an injustice. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court did that for property owners in Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City. On Friday, in Knick v. Township of Scott, the court ended that injustice by overruling Williamson County by a 5-4 vote. For more than 30 years, people with claims under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause have been told, “Get in the back of the...
  • Clarence Thomas Benchslaps the Federal Government in a Property Rights Case

    06/21/2019 1:15:24 PM PDT · by reaganaut1 · 10 replies
    Reason ^ | June 21, 2019 | Damon Root
    ... In addition to being a victory for property owners, Knick v. Township of Scott is also notable for featuring some sharp words from Justice Clarence Thomas directed at the federal government. As Thomas noted in a concurring opinion, the U.S. solicitor general filed an amicus brief in the case which argued that "the failure to provide contemporaneous compensation for a taking does not violate the Fifth Amendment if the government has provided an adequate mechanism for obtaining just compensation." What's wrong with that? Here is a sample of Thomas' rather pointed rebuke to the federal government: The United States…urges...
  • Court of Appeals Upholds New Jersey Law Banning 15-Round Mags

    12/07/2018 7:17:49 AM PST · by Blood of Tyrants · 54 replies
    GunsAmerica Digest ^ | 12/6/18 | Max Slowik
    A federal appeals court upheld New Jersey’s magazine-capacity-limit laws, arguing 2-1 that three 10-round magazines are just as good as two 15-rounders. They said that a magazine-capacity limit does not present a burden to self-defense. New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal favored the decision to limit gun owners to 10-round magazines. (Photo: Grewal) Previously New Jersey residents had a magazine-capacity limit of 15 rounds, due to a law passed in 1990. The new law restricts gun owners to 10 rounds and they must modify, destroy or register any magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The law makes an...
  • Split 3rd Circuit Upholds NJ's Ban on Large-Capacity Gun Magazines

    12/05/2018 2:25:23 PM PST · by ScottfromNJ · 53 replies
    New Jersey Law Journal ^ | December 05, 2018 | Charles Toutant
    Split 3rd Circuit Upholds NJ's Ban on Large-Capacity Gun Magazines The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected a challenge to New Jersey’s ban on firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The appeals court, by a 2-1 margin, said the law limiting high-capacity magazines does not violate the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The court affirmed an order from the U.S. District Court that denied challengers’ motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the law. Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr. and Patty Shwartz ruled to affirm the lower court....
  • Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

    06/23/2017 2:20:20 PM PDT · by Sopater · 131 replies
    Reason ^ | 6/23/17 | Eric Boehm
    When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don't necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday. The court voted 5-3, in Murr V. Wisconsin, a closely watched Fifth Amendment property rights case. The case arose from a dispute over two tiny parcels of land along the St. Croix River in western Wisconsin and morphed into a major property rights case that drew several western states into the debate before the court. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a scathing dissent, wrote that ruling was a significant blow for property rights and would give greater...
  • Court ruling could delay beltway

    03/07/2017 8:09:52 AM PST · by Tolerance Sucks Rocks · 2 replies
    The Winston-Salem Journal ^ | February 16, 2017 | Wesley Young
    A judge’s order could delay the start of construction on the next segment of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway unless contested condemnation claims are resolved by this coming fall. Attorney Matthew Bryant said Forsyth County Superior Court Judge John Craig would be signing orders this week dismissing some new condemnation proceedings started recently by the N.C. Department of Transportation against some landowners in the beltway segment planned between Reidsville and New Walkertown roads. Those new condemnation proceedings were started as part of the state’s effort to acquire land for that beltway segment, which is scheduled to go to contract this fall....
  • Property-rights dispute

    07/17/2007 5:48:39 AM PDT · by 3AngelaD · 51 replies · 2,667+ views
    The Washington Times ^ | July 17, 2007 | Sonya D. Jones and John R. Lott Jr.
    Retirees Shirley and Herbert Leu had a problem. Part of their backyard was collapsing into a ditch that ran along the U.S.-Canadian border. Before building their 4-foot-high retaining wall, the Leus made sure they were in compliance with all local regulations...It never dawned on the Leus that this would lead to an international incident and an ideological battle over private property. The debate became one of whether an international commission could simply come onto their property, remove their wall and then send them the bill. The controversy escalated to soap opera proportions with the Departments of State and Justice as...
  • Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice

    06/25/2005 12:34:04 PM PDT · by n-tres-ted · 100 replies · 1,897+ views
    Memo On The Margin ^ | June 25, 2005 | Jude Wanniski
    Memo To: President George W. Bush Cc: Karl Rove From: Jude Wanniski Re: The “Taking Clause” Erased To be honest, Mr. President, until the Supreme Court on Thursday announced its 5-to-4 decision limiting the property rights of all Americans, I assumed that upon the retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist you would not name Justice Clarence Thomas to fill that vacancy – and that you would probably be wise to avoid the controversy his nomination would bring. But after reading Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion in the New London, Conn. case, I think his wisdom, his judgment and his perspective so clearly...
  • The truth behind the eminent domain case now before the U.S. Supreme Court

    03/24/2005 7:19:59 PM PST · by Cottage Coalition · 13 replies · 1,183+ views
    The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Kelo v. New London, the Connecticut eminent domain case which will determine how this ultimate government power is used for generations. The truth has been obscured in this and almost every other case of eminent domain seizure for "economic benefit."So many of the facts in this and similar cases have been obscured and misrepresented that a new web site has been created dedicated to countering this propaganda.  Use it as a resource to obtain the truth.Learn the facts here:  http://www.CottageCoalition.orgYou will learn: New London is not a city in economic distress. Its...
  • Continental Convergence on Connecticut this Sunday

    02/15/2005 10:54:28 PM PST · by NewLondon · 3 replies · 665+ views
    Massive send-off rally to support the Fort Trumbull eminent domain victims in their 5-year quest for justice before the U.S. Supreme Court next week. See link for details.