Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
The authority to make law was given to the legislatures. That is the essence of republican govm't. Constitutional amendm't is used to modify scope, powers and mechanics of govm't.
There is no way to force that except by the methods of the Godfather. I don't believe we have descended to horse heads already.
I've now read the dissents in full and O'Connor's position is clearly that three categories comply with the public use requirement: (1) transfer from private to public ownership; (2) transfer from private to private ownership for public service; (3) transfer from private to private ownership for public purpose.
The public purpose is to remedy affirmative harm to the public - e.g., blight & oligopoly.
Justice Thomas would maintain the first two categories and remove the third altogether out of eminent domain jurisprudence and into property regulation persuant the police power. I suspect that I agree mostly with the interpretation of Justice Thomas, but I think Justice O'Connor's view is also reasoned (and they actually reach the same ends by different paths).
No, I do not think her position is embarrassing.
Not to hijack the thread, couldn't if I tried, but do you mean the same Congress that just voted to fully fund PBS? That Congress? What a banner day this ones been. Blackbird.
This is just another example of the dangers of democracy.In a republic rights aren't subject to the whim of the mob.
Welcome to the United Socialist Amerika.
And where was the Bush White House lawyers and Justice Dept appointees arguing for individual citizen's rights ?
"You are a really thoughtfull guy.
But the UK and Benelux pay disproportionate amount of taxes to fund ag subsidies and project in Spain and greece. That is why Blair (no conservative) and Chirac blew up at each other over the UKs 'rebate'.
In addition to ag subsidies france."
France has more agricultural land and farms than any other country by a huge margin, so of course France will get more agricultural subsidies than any other, assuming there is such a program. In America, Iowa gets more agricultural subsidies than Rhode Island, not because Iowa is corrupt, but because it is a vast farmland, and Rhode Island is smaller.
Spain and Greece are poor countries, and subsidies were given to them to try and bring them up.
Personally, I think the whole agricultural subsidy system has become absurd and needs to be reformed fundamentally into a final insurance system against real natural disasters or wild crop fluctuations in a single year or two. The long-term, continuous setting of production goals and then buying useless goods for disposal: this is senseless in Europe and in America too, and needs to change.
Can they write a new law against this act?
But Justice O'Connor's position is that the public purpose must be to remedy an affirmative public harm, and not merely to substitute some more desirable benefit.
The real problem here is the incorporation of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the Constitution applied to this scenario in any way at all, and so they didn't phrase it accordingly.
Not from what I've seen them do. There is no limit to what they will do. Freedom and rights mean nothing to them. They are w/o principle. They rule in an arbitrary fashion to suit whatever whim profits them.
Can who? Congress? Probably not. Seperation of Powers. Also, the new Raich ruling on the Commerce Clause could be used to over-rule any lower State or Local statute used t otry and combat this ruling.
Being broke and having crummy schools, and having crowded roads, and air pollution, are all public harms. It is a distinction without a difference.
SCOTUS positions are life long positions.
These black-robed bastards and bitches need to be IMPEACHED!!!
"Unfortunately, I fear it is going to get worse long before it gets better. With the left unable to win at the ballot boxes, and judges willing to enact policy from the bench, the battle for the control of the courtroom could get intense."
Interesting.
You appear to think that the problem lies with the judges, not with the constitutional structure itself. You acknowledge, tacitly, that the Supreme Court ought to have such power as it does; you see the battle as one of making sure the right judges are there so that they don't use that power in ways you think are inappropriate.
I think that the problem lies with the American constitutional structure itself. It does not seem to me that the solution lies in trying to somehow find 9 incorruptible men who, once in the position of final arbiter and creator of law in America, will use such powers only for the benevolent ends of those who originally appointed them (but cannot remove them).
It seems to me that the solution lies in changing the US Constitutional structure so that the courts cannot overturn laws passed by Congress, giving the elected branches the supreme authority which cannot be challenged by anybody.
Somewhere, that supreme authority lies.
In America, currently it lies in the Supreme Court, where 5 unelected, lifetime officials can establish any law as the supreme law.
I think that the supreme authority ought to lie in the 535 elected members of the US Congress, who serve relatively short terms and can be held accountable by the democracy.
But such a change would be fundamental. It would require a different constitution than the one America has. Americans would have to opt for a constitutional convention, such as the US constitution allows, and formulate a new constitution which would remove supreme authority from the judiciary and place it either in the legislature or, perhaps, the executive, depending on American choices.
That would be radical, and I have no sense that Americans connect the bad laws that come from the US Supreme Court with a flaw in the American Constitution itself.
If you experience some sort of "loss", and it need not have an exact monetary value, and the "loss" is directly the fault of another party, you can sue them.
For example, say you had a home and a halfway decent job. But city X comes along and evicts you to build a Chukkee Cheese or some crap.
You are very agitated, having lost your home, and are a bit grumpy at work, and get canned for it. Other than that, you have an excellent work record.
All it takes is nine fellow citizens to agree with you that your job loss is directly attributable to the city.
And they WILL agree!
And the city is not the only party to the suit. The Cheese boys are in there as well.
You will get whatever you ask for.
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.