Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes

charlotte.com - AP ^ | Jun. 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[RightWhale]

Nah, they are Democrats of convenience. I am not a Democrat, but if they want my opinion it would be that Democrats of convenience are ruining the Party. Same for Republicans. Equal opportunity in this country.

[pollywog]

You are SO right BerthaDee!!!!! Someone needs to create a " To Call, To Write, list of names and numbers"!!!!! I think we are ready to act!

[epow]

managed by an arrogant, one-party government that acts like it owns you.

It does own you, or at least your property.

You just THINK you own your home or condo. Stop paying the lords of the manor their yearly tribute for a couple of years and you'll find out who really owns it.

Where is Wat Tyler when you really need him?

[Nowhere Man]

I am not a DUer but I am a liberal and read DU frequently. I almost have to choke back tears to think that the liberals tipped the scales in favor of this. And I now have to change my political affiliation.

I can't change what's in my heart, however. I will always hold some liberal views, but I am a conservative in some ways too, number 1 of them being property rights, followed by fiscal conservatism and I'm not in favor of gun control.

I confess part of me thinks this did happen on W's watch, even though it was the liberals who sealed the deal. What this tells me is that neither party is to be trusted. You've got the republicans, who are really controlled by the neoconservatives (I did vote for Reagan, but old school republicans have gone by the wayside. Call me an isolationist who believes in not racking up deficits) and now you have the traitor dems.

Please don't think all liberals/leftists/democrats are dummies. It's mostly the democratic politicians who've messed things up.

Welcome to FR. I know myself, I might have gotten a few battle scars myself on here, but then again, not everyone agrees with everything here. I see myself as a Judeo-Christian, social, military and religious conservative but I'm much more of an centrist and lean "Third Way" (some) on economic matters. I admit I get into trouble for that. I do believe in strong property rights and I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I seen my fair share of conservatives who are mean as well as conservatives who are nice and liberals cover that range too. I do think both parties have dropped the ball on doing what is right for America.

The Democrats hurt themselves with a very, very liberal social agenda and hand outs on welfare. I don't see welfare as a negative as long as it is a hand up, not a hand out. I do think FDR had some good ideas, but I think LBJ screwed it up and with the hippies of the 1960's, we are reaping what we have sowed. It's a shame the Democrats ruined themselves, we need to have more Zell Millers, Scoop Jacksons and so on.

The Republicans have their monied interests, although I do say the Democrats have their share too, and like hte Democrats with their liberal social policies, the Republicans with their money policies leave the common person out in the cold with turkeys like CAFTA and the recent "bankruptcy reform." I've been registered Republican since 1984 when I turned 18, but there are times I feel politically homeless.

Getting back to this ruling, I think it is dead wrong and we are all under the gun if we own property, or even rent it.

I'm kind of glad to see some on the DU side agree with us. We need to stop the name calling such as using "DUmmies" or "Freeptards" and take a look on where things are headed in this country and I do fear for our future. I know on most things, I'll never agree with most over at DU, well, I told you where I lay politically, but it is kind of refreshing to see that this is so bad that both sides are crying foul. I doubt we will get to the point to were DU and FR will break bread, but as someone else said, "when both FR and DU agree on something, it must really be bad."

[Nowhere Man]

I am reminded of the 1850s, when things were escalating...

My father has been saying the same thing since 1973. It's a shame, isn't it?

[flutters]

Bump to the quotes!

[Knitting A Conundrum]

It's a closer match now I believe, than in the 70s...A scary thought. The polarization then crescendoed up through the 1840s and went balistic in the 50s...and nowadays the polarization keeps growing and growing and growing.

Will there be a straw that breaks the camel's back?

[Humal]

Congress can over-ride a Presidential veto by a 2/3 majority. Isn't there a way Congress can over-ride a Supreme Court decision? Congress can revise a law the USSC says is illegal, but could they revise an amendment? An old civics book I have mentions several aspects of checks and balances, but nothing is mentioned about over-riding a decision (other than FDR's attempt to increase the size of the court).

[to_zion]

Amen!

We need the troops fighting for our freedom here! I'd love to hear Lou Dobbs take on this.. also what does W think of this?

[to_zion]

I have mentions several aspects of checks and balances, but nothing is mentioned about over-riding a decision

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Checkers]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1574059&mesg_id=1574059

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1575546&mesg_id=1575546

DU, of all places, doesn't like the ruling.

[Paul_Denton]

Devastating. Demoralizing. Despicable. Un-American. I am beside myself. Revolution, anyone?

I sure as heck will not go down without a fight.

[MarMema]

Welcome to the USSA

Perfect. Are you renting it out for a tagline?

[E.G.C.]

Here are my thoughts on the subject.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is unfortunately just another example of many of the U.S. Constitution taking a back seat to the opinions of some judicial activists in black robes.

This was an issue that was adrressed awhile back by a number of concerned elected representatives, including Rep. Tom Delay R-Teaxs. Of course we all know what happened after he expressed those concerns.

Of course I'm all for free enterprise, but I'm also for a strict intrepetation of the U.S. Constitution. When the founding fathers mentioned "Public Use' They meant for it to mean roads, bridges and schools. They did not mean for it to mean economic reasons. Clearly the U.S. Supreme Court blew it big time on this one.

Whether anybody likes it being said or not our judicial system is way out of control and needs to be reigned in. It's my hope that our elected will recognize the ramfications that this will have on a lot of the many samll communities and think about this when they consider what they're going to do when the next Suprem Court vacancy happens and most likely it will happen sooner than later.

I would also hope that our elected officials will think better and recognize the value of samll bussineses in their own communtities and stand up to defense of private property rights of those small businesses that are the backbone of a lot of small communities in America. Without those small businesses, many of those communities simply wouldn't exist.
Regards....

[Freebird Forever]

And NEAL BOORTZ, who has ALWAYS lambasted city governments for this kind of crap.

I've got to admit that I don't get the opportunity to listen to Boortz as much as I'd like, but what I have heard of him would lead me to concur with your comment.

[pepperdog]

Wouldn't that be just too sweet!

[Dead Corpse]

Key word would be HAD rule of Law. What we have now is a rule of lawmakers. Entirely different thing. The first is limited while this second permutation we are seeing appears unlimited.

And completely ignores any attempt to change it despite your assertion.

[pepperdog]

Only 66%? I knew it and now there is no doubt, one-third of this country is totally NUTS!

[GOPJ]

Key word would be HAD rule of Law. What we have now is a rule of lawmakers. Entirely different thing. The first is limited while this second permutation we are seeing appears unlimited.

Rule of lawmakers is fine - it's rule of judges that's wrong. Lawmaker are supposed to make laws. Not judges. I'm sick to death about these jerks on the SC making it possible to steal a citizens' land. I'm ready to fight them - unelect the liberals, get conservative judges, etc. I'm just not ready for a revolution. We can win playing by the rules.