Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
OH?
Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to a copy of the Published Rules for Criminal Prosecution Under Statutory Jurisdiction?
You know, kind of like 'Roberts Rules of Order' for the courts.
"This ruling is further proof that a majority on the current court are more in touch with 'international law' than they are with the fundemental principles that made this country what it is."
International law?
Oh no, not at all.
French law is much, much more protective of private property, private homes especially, and the personal privacy of individuals on their property than American law is, across the board.
The American justices today most certainly did not get any of this precedent from French law or the Civil Law system.
No, I am afraid that this court decision is a Frankenstein monster of purely American making, starting with the remarkable fact that a court should be deciding this issue AT ALL.
BLOAT!!! 'Pod
They really shouldn't have to wonder. Power corrupts.
It's exactly the same phenomenon that turns businesspeople -- who are mistakenly identified as "conservatives" or "capitalists" by those who haven't been paying attention -- into boosters for higher taxes and more government intervention into economic activities.
Just as long as their business will benefit.
Putting more business-oriented conservatives into office is offered as one solution to saving rotting old cities. I don't see that trading one form of corruption (silly labor rules, prevailing wages, etc.) for another (special land deals, tax abatements) will make them any better to live in. Only for the favored, wealthy few.
Well, they're ignoring the most important principle of all these days: That the right to life is God-given and inalienable.
Add to that the various ways they're ignoring other important inalienable rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. One example would be the breach of the First Amendment right to free political speech represented by so-called 'campaign finance reform'. There are others.
But private property rights are what I would call 'the third leg' after life and liberty.
This ruling does grave damage to American liberty, IMO.
Our only remedy, short of rebellion, is to keep working until we get a majority of real conservatives on the court.
If our current POTUS nominates another phony, it will be an infamous betrayal of those who elected him.
I hope and pray he doesn't do that to the country and to his legacy.
Now, with this ruling, we have simply expanded number 8 to more directly transfer property to another private entity.
The 5th amendment really speaks more to the requirement for government to PAY you for your property if they take it, NOT so much to prevent them from taking it.
Amendment V
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 offense 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.
We need to fight our local governments. This ruling simply gives them the right to do more of what they do. We can vote people into office who put the citizens above corporate interests.
I hate this ruling, but at least we do have a recourse.
I think this will benefit the agenda 21/un crowd more than anyone in the long run. The precedent to take away private property for a larger tax base has been set. The door is open to what the lefties really want. Total control of the land for any reason.
Moron. 'Pod
I agree it was in the National Interest. They just weren't paid. Not paying has been going on forever too.
Um, I went through this with Conoco Philips, guess what, they were misusing the criteria of eminent domain to get what they wanted for nothing. It was a private corporation not a public utility. Just because liberal courts have been doing this doesn't mean it's right. I'm not panicked, I'm thoroughly PISSED OFF.
I'm dealing with another multibillion dollar corporation trying to pull the same damn thing of bypassing negotiations by running to the courts to take my property well below the fair market value. Why should they receive special considerations from the courts to trample over the owners of property they want? The way a property is used most definitely determines the value. I own a very valuable piece of property and should not be threatened with this crap every time the multibillion dollar corporations want to renegotiate the lease.
In the old days when they came to negotiate with my grandfather, they were above board and decent, it's not that way any more. It's cut throat, underhanded and threatening. It's my damn property, not theirs. I should have some say in how things go down correct? Where do we go for redress? Where do you go if it's your property they want?
I for one will now stand against this decision.
I will begin by starting here at the grass roots,
with all Freepers and ask that you send me a
note on this system, if you are wiling to support
a movement for a National referendum, to amend
the grey area of the Constitution to mean We the
People, Not the government having emminent domain
over the people.
It has gone too far folks, so if you want to help,
send me an email here, and I will send you the
Blog link that will start on June 25 2005.
Ops4 God Bless America!
As usual, your screenname is totally apropos.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
"If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them."
Perhaps the D.C. City Council can vote to condemn the Supreme Court chambers to make way for a parking lot. The justices can work on laptops in the back seat of their cars.
I used to be very hostile to 'slippery slope' type arguments (everything is ultimately on a slippery slope). I'm not so sure anymore..
I used to be very hostile to 'slippery slope' type arguments (everything is ultimately on a slippery slope). I'm not so sure anymore..
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.