[mlc9852]

We need a constitutional amendment eliminating the Supreme Court.

[Bommer]

The real question is, at what level does a ruling justify judicial Impeachment? Democraps could not standby, because this ruling hits everyone no matter what their political affiliation is!

[wildwood]

this is a shocking ruling. i cannot imagine even liberals touting it as a good ruling.

it makes one wonder if our country's fathers should have john locke's provision for the right to own property in the Declaration of Independence, along with the right to life.

i guess they just figured something like this couldn't happen in this country, since an individual's right to own property has always been assumed.

[EagleUSA]

Another snippet on this disaster for American rights of ownership ----

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut (search) residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (search) said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
-----
As we note the names of the supporting leftist activist justices. Yes, more power to the government at your expense of freedoms and protection of your property rights. If this does not SHOW TO THE WORLD what a platform for socialist judicial activism that the Supreme Court has become, they deserve what they are getting....SOCIALISM FOR THE UNITED STATES.

[kellynla]

Chairman Mao's General Store coming to your backyard...

now where did I put that "Chinese For Dummies" book???

ain't it time for some of these Lefties with the Supremes to retire or die!!!

[ThinkDifferent]

Disgusting. Our Constitution now has barely more practical meaning than those of China and the former USSR.

[AD from SpringBay]

Beware the politicians with dollar signs in their eyes who are in possession of a piece of paper signed by their fellows.

2AP+

[buckleyfan]

Start thinking about a campaign, people.. let your senators, congressmen know. Recourse would be by amendment. What a sickening decision.

[Wuli]

It is time for Bush
to go to congress
with a simple request
that declares
to the court from the other two branches of government,
with regard to this ruling:

"go ahead, try to enforce it"

and then Bush should put federal marshalls in charge of protecting the private property about which the court made its ruling.

[wideawake]

Forget flagburning. We need a Constitutional amendment for this.

[RightWhale]

Radical headline

Actually there is some question where private property comes from in the first place.

[peacebaby]

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.

[Publius6961]

The Constitution exists as protection for citizens against abuses by their government.

It appears totally ineffective, now.

[MadIvan]

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

[LM_Guy]

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.

[fella]

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?

[Criminal Number 18F]

Judge. Rope. Tree.


Some assembly required.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[shekkian]

I was really looking forward to buying my first home this year. Now I'm not so sure.

[rockrr]

"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)

[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.