Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Expands Power of Eminent Domain
Chicago Tribune ^
| June 23, 2005
| David G. Savage
Posted on 06/23/2005 3:26:27 PM PDT by Still Thinking
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 last
To: Still Thinking
I have an idea. Let's get the DC City Council to condemn the Supreme Court building so they can put up a Wal*Mart. |
41
posted on
06/23/2005 6:25:52 PM PDT
by
Nick Danger
(www.iranfree.org)
To: Still Thinking
I hope someone bulldozes their homes.
To: Nick Danger
Be more useful (and that's going a ways, cuz I HATE Great-Wall Mart)!
43
posted on
06/23/2005 6:28:18 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: Still Thinking
Guys
This is an issue both the far left, far right, and libertarians totally agree. Lets work together to remove these judges , or do whatever needs to be done.
I personally, have never written to a single politician. I always vote, minus one small election, since I have been registered. Someone educate me on what my options are. This pisses me off so bad I am having a tinge of activism hit me.
This ruling is so for a few elite in every city to run ramshod over anyone they want. I am simply DISGUSTED with the SC.
44
posted on
06/23/2005 6:39:33 PM PDT
by
Cruzin2fold
(To get to the greener pastures in life, you have to step through a lot of fertilizer.)
To: Still Thinking
I THOUGHT I heard something about this earlier ... Missed the first half, so I thought it was maybe something out of the 9th "Circus" court, that would be overturned by anyone that ever read the Constitution.
Cripes------
All I can say is:
OVER MY DEAD BODY.
To: Rethgryn
We agree with a lot of the DUmmies on this matter, but for distinctly different reasons: they see it, by and large, as a boon for HUEEGE CORPORATIONS; we see it as a blow to liberty.
Regardless, a few of them actually veered dangerously close to commonsense on this singular issue. Wonders never cease.
47
posted on
06/23/2005 10:14:13 PM PDT
by
A Jovial Cad
("A man's character is his fate." -Heraclitus)
To: Still Thinking
Now, as long as officials hope to create jobs or raise tax collections, they can seize the homes of unwilling sellers, the court said. This "public purpose" is a "public use" of the land, the court said in Kelo vs. New London.
To: Stentor
The problem is that private property has been redefined as public property. Therefore male only clubs are outlawed, bars are forced to be non smoking, etc. because they are "public accommodations". The government has made almost every facet of human life, except sodomy, the domain of "the public good".
To: Still Thinking
If I am reading this ruling correctly it appears the US Supreme court just made it perfectly legal for the city of New York to sieze the property that the UN is built on for purposes of building a shopping mall.
50
posted on
06/24/2005 8:12:17 AM PDT
by
festus
(The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 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