Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
Yeah, right.
This is the president running around blathering about how US taxpayers must have their money stolen to "increase liberty" in foreign countries, while he increases subsidies, grows government, cooks up stupid "free" pill vote-buying scams and assaults the First Amendment.
This is sickening.
George Soros and ilk are smiling today, they practically have written this opinion. Remember "International Law" Ginsberg?
Property rights are also implicit in the 8th Commandment. It is interesting that they said pursuit of happiness rather than right to own property. They nearly did say that.
It has potential :-D Where's the ACLU? /joke
I have a better one: any old oak trees on the properties? Rare plant species? Historical landmarks? Spotted owl nests????
The world is NOT ending.
And I quote "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline."
You know what to do. 2006 state government sessions, 2006 elections, 2006 state constitutional amendemnts. At least the liberals could only manage to make these claims by screaming "federalism".
We'll show them federalism.
No, then they will just feel that they will have to pay you less for it when they take it to turn it into Section 8 housing. Look at the bright side though. I'll bet that you can rent a room back fairly cheap. That is if it isn't too full of illegal immigrants-excuse me "migrants" or if they don't bulldoze it for a conservation easement.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
You could just as easily ask me to show you the statement that supports my view that your right to be alive is explicitly granted...
If the government cannot deprive you of property without due process of law, nor take it except for public use and without just compensation, then by default private property is explicitly granted.
You are approaching all this from a post-Marxism perspective. That's your main error. ;^)
Thanks Supremes, you pips. You just made my decision easier for the 2006 elections.
Bad decision.
Maybe now the liberals will see "judicial activism" in a somewhat different light.
I won't hold my breath though - it goes in their favor at least 80% of the time . . .
I'm just......i CAN'T FIND A WORD.
We have GOT to raise hell about this.
Liberals (as much as we normally disagree) are as MUCH at risk as we are from this decision.
Even if we only unite for this ONE objective, it would be worth it!!
Look at the case of the gun range, established for 50 years in a once rural area. Homes came in, then new schools and the neighbors are trying to shut it down since it is now too close to a school. Never mind the fact that the range predated the school by decades. Never mind the fact that it was no secret that the range existed when the site for the school was chosen. Neighbors take shots at gun range
This is a basic, fundamental shift in the concept of property rights. It is a watershed event (in more ways than one if your property happens to be part of a watershed). I don't think you are seeing mass fear that the gubermint is hiring bulldozers and is coming tomorrow. Instead, most FReepers recognize the major significance of this decision and what it could mean if the mayor's brother-in-law covets your land. Or your new neighbors think your house is too shabby and is lowering their property values.
Carry Okie?
That's a joke, right?
"It's non-residential property that is most affected."
I don't think this limitation was expressed in the opinion.
What if your neighbor wanted to expand his house? Why couldn't he get yours through eminent domain if it could be shown that tax revenues will be higher to the locality.
Then you can just go find an empty parcel of land that strikes your fancy and get it through eminent domain so you can build on it.......it'll bring more tax revenue, so why not?
This has so many unintended consequences it's unreal.
Ah, but "impeachment" and "treason" are such harsh words. Maybe we should take the "It's just business" approach. Devise a new process, give it a nice colorless name without unpleasant connotations...maybe affix "eu-" to a Latin root so it shows we are doing a kindness that is in everyone's best interests. Then the justice being de-benched will understand it's nothing personal, no need to take offense, could happen to any barking moonbat who can't keep their damn crayons off our Constitution.
These personal residences have a greater value to the public as museums rather than as personal homes. All personal property would have to remain in the residences to maintain the historical integrity of the properties.
The now homeless judges could sue the towns and cities for just compensation, and settle for pennies on the dollar.
Welcome to the "Socialist States of America".
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.