Skip to comments.
U.S. Supreme Court destroys the right to private property
Evergreen Freedom Foundation ^
| 6-23-05
Posted on 06/23/2005 12:12:48 PM PDT by truth49
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-145 next last
To: truth49
Radical headline
Actually there is some question where private property comes from in the first place.
21
posted on
06/23/2005 12:26:36 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
To: truth49
would be ironic if the government took my home for a public park, leaving me virtually homeless, yet I couldn't live in the park.
22
posted on
06/23/2005 12:28:44 PM PDT
by
peacebaby
(We can't become what we need to be by remaining what we are. Oprah Winfrey)
To: TXBSAFH
I was just thinking of going to the DU to see what the reaction was. I just knew that they would be outraged too.
This is going to make the Democrats look like fools when they filibuster Bush's conservative court nominations. I see a Scalia, Chief Justice in the future.
I have half a notion to email Harry Reid and taunt him.
23
posted on
06/23/2005 12:28:52 PM PDT
by
Eva
To: truth49
The Constitution exists as protection for citizens against abuses by their
government.
It appears totally ineffective, now.
24
posted on
06/23/2005 12:29:44 PM PDT
by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
To: Wuli
>> and then Bush should put federal marshalls in charge of protecting the private property about which the court made its ruling.
I'm sure Bush will get right on this, just after he finishes up "boarder security".
What a joke this country is becoming.
25
posted on
06/23/2005 12:31:25 PM PDT
by
mmercier
(and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down)
To: RightWhale
Where does it come from, Rightwhale?
26
posted on
06/23/2005 12:31:37 PM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
To: truth49
In 1776, this would have created a riot. Boston would be burning right now.
In 2005, not only is there no riot, the liberal elite in Boston is probably saying "Quite right, too".
Regards, Ivan
27
posted on
06/23/2005 12:32:33 PM PDT
by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: truth49
I say don't just complain here but email your house rep and senators and demand a new constitutional amendment so that the 5 idiots on the SC will now know what "Public Use" means in the 5th amendment. Here is the text I used, use or abuse as you see fit
As a Republican who very much believes in the power of individual freedom and the right to own property which has been a Constitutional guarantee and a bedrock of our American society. I am appalled by today's Supreme Court decision - "Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes" that allows a private developer to seize a persons land/home via a city's (or States) eminent domain power just so they can put a office building or shopping mall on it.
By the logic used, anybody with the help of the City Council or County Board could grab any other person's home & land if they are just willing to build a more expensive home on it or apartment units or a store etc. that makes the property more valuable, and thereby increase city/county tax revenues.
Please consider sponsoring a new Constitutional amendment better defining what is meant in the 5th amendment the term Public use as only property fully owned by a State or Local Government entity and not otherwise leased, rented or transferred in anyway to a private company or person.
28
posted on
06/23/2005 12:33:15 PM PDT
by
LM_Guy
To: truth49
This is just so moot. The right to own property in this country was given up a log time ago when yearly taxes on property were imposed. At that moment the right to own property was over. The landed poor are a thing of the past because of property taxes but they couldn't afford the high cost of justice and had to humbly accept their fate. Now that it's the middle-class's turn and how can we fight a feat accomplished when our legislatures are so full of greedy lawyers?
29
posted on
06/23/2005 12:39:04 PM PDT
by
fella
("Ya don work, Ya don eat. Savvy?")
To: MadIvan
What are they saying in England?
30
posted on
06/23/2005 12:41:39 PM PDT
by
palmer
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
To: truth49
Judge. Rope. Tree.
Some assembly required.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
31
posted on
06/23/2005 12:42:30 PM PDT
by
Criminal Number 18F
(If timidity made you safe, Bambi would be king of the jungle.)
To: palmer
Frankly this case hasn't made it to the news here.
Regards, Ivan
32
posted on
06/23/2005 12:42:49 PM PDT
by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: truth49
I was really looking forward to buying my first home this year. Now I'm not so sure.
33
posted on
06/23/2005 12:42:54 PM PDT
by
shekkian
To: shekkian
If I ever left England, I would choose between America and Australia. Australia just shifted a touch more in favour.
Regards, Ivan
34
posted on
06/23/2005 12:45:22 PM PDT
by
MadIvan
(You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
To: truth49
"If the legislature does not take steps to protect property rights, Williams warned that the people must do so themselves at the ballot box."
Or in the streets......
FMCDH (BITS)
35
posted on
06/23/2005 12:51:59 PM PDT
by
rockrr
(Gregorovych Nyet!)
To: TXBSAFH
"I was lurking at the DUmp, and they are as outraged as us. This goes beyond party lines and is ahuge issue. In translation on freerepublic agreeing with DUmp:"
Yeah, me too. I read that SD O'Connor was the only Supreme that showed descent on this issue. Now you post that the DUmmies are also outraged.
This day in 2005 I find myself agreeing with SD O' and the DU. Holy Cow, am I a liberal now? Where's my bottle cyanide capsules?
To: myheroesareDeadandRegistered
This day in 2005 I find myself agreeing with SD O' and the DU. Holy Cow, am I a liberal now? Where's my bottle cyanide capsules? I know the feeling, I signed up recently (multi-year lurker) but have come down on the same side as "the wrong side" on this and another big issue ... I keep looking for dark clouds above.
To: truth49
The "real" in real estate means royal. (Spanish from real or royal, and Latin regalis, regal). In other words real estate belongs to the king. Those who doubt that can try not paying their taxes (rent) and see who owns it.
38
posted on
06/23/2005 12:56:41 PM PDT
by
OK
To: OK
The "real" in real estate means royal. (Spanish from real or royal, and Latin regalis, regal). In other words real estate belongs to the king. Those who doubt that can try not paying their taxes (rent) and see who owns it. I suddenly feel much worse, thanks. :)
To: truth49
Eminent domain is the legal authority for a governing body to confiscate private property for *public* use, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. New London officials announced plans to raze the homes in order to build high-end condominiums, a luxury hotel and several office buildings, arguing that private development serves a public interest in boosting economic growth. The author highlighted the wrong word. It's not the public, it's the use.
Is the land being seized for public use or public interest? Can anyone use the office buildings and luxury hotel the way they can use a freeway exit?
-PJ
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-145 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson