Posted on 06/24/2005 4:15:43 AM PDT by bwteim
True. But it illustrates the last line of editorial:
"These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles."
I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. Casino's , hotels, wealthy overseas investors and the like will be scouring neighborhoods for the perfect score. Office buildings replacing homes because the tax base is higher will uproute average people. They will all blame George W. Bush. Watch.
As the bulldozer operator tearing down the Kennedy compound I know you would stop if Fat Ted decided to pull a Rachel Corrie and stand in front of that bulldozer.
*****We truly need to start organizing to take back our Republic.*****
The Dems are already organised and are succeeding in destroying it.
When one sees the the word "vast" along side of the name "Kennedy", it's an easy assumption, and one I made as well.
However, there is some hope here in Supreme Court ruling...at least for the town of Hyannis.
That's the way I see it! Since this SCOTUS involves tax revenues, all the locals there need to do is show that more revenue can be generated by replacing the Kennedy estate with something else, and since people are always claiming that the super rich don't pay their fair share in taxes due to the many loopholes they have created for themselves, this might be pretty easy to claim. Hmmm! I wonder how much revenue could be generated by building an Alcohol Rehab center there?
They could take the Kennedy compound by eminent domain...
Here I go misreading things yet again! I first thought this said "They could take the Kennedy compound by ENEMA domain"...
The essential thing is that Bush nominate the right people for supreme court vacancies and not quislings like Kennedy --who will change once he gets on the court--and stealth candidates --like Souter---who did not need to change because his judicial philosphy was hidden and misrepresented by that skunk--Warren Rudman. Bush--and America --cannot afford another careless nomination from a Republican president. There will be a fight with them all, and shirking a fight is not a permissible motive for an American President at this point in time.
"I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. "
Here's one comment already:
http://www.record-journal.com/articles/2005/06/24/news/news01.txt
Meriden, Conn.
Decision could help city in redevelopment project
By Steven Scarpa, Record-Journal staff
MERIDEN -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday upholding the rights of local government to seize property for private development could theoretically apply to the City Center Initiative, although backers say it is unlikely eminent domain will be needed.
"I think that power should always be used sensitively. But it is good for the economic development business," said Wayne D'Amico, Meriden Economic Resource Group coordinator.
Count me in!!!!
Well, for now they are pressing ahead with the flag-burning amendment.
I guess to some, the symbols of freedom are more important than actual freedom itself.
However, I would be inclined to re-evaluate these priorities.
""I really do not think anyone can imagine what chaos this decision could cause. " "
And here's another opinion from Connecticut, Norwich Bulletin, about a surgeon wielding a sledge hammer...
I am sure citizens of Norwich will rest easy tonight.
In Norwich, seizures are last resort
By DOROTHY SCHNEIDER
Norwich Bulletin
"This is an important decision for municipalities struggling to revitalize post-industrial neighborhoods," said Norwich Assistant City Manager Bob Zarnetske, who's slated to take over as city manager at the end of the year. "(But) we recognize eminent domain is a sledgehammer and has to be wielded carefully."
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050624/NEWS01/506240303/1002
It does little good to amend the Constitution, when we have justices who pay no attention to the Constitution.
But don't you see: they are taking private property for private use so there is not need to provide compensation. Such clever justices we have who are able to read the Constitution with such clarity and imagination.
But that last paragraph you cite is the killer.
Editorial from Macon, Georgia
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/11969331.htm
Posted on Fri, Jun. 24, 2005
There is no safe haven for U.S. property owners
Probably few in Middle Georgia know much about the case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday - Susette Kelo, et al., v. City of New London, Conn., et al., No. 04-108. However, the impact of the 5-4 ruling will reverberate throughout the country.
The case seems simple on the surface. The petitioners asked one question: "What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of 'economic development' that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?"
Basically, the city of New London handed its eminent domain powers to the not-for-profit New London Development Corp. The NLDC had created a plan to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood (Pfizer planned to build a global research center adjacent to it) and decided a hotel conference center, new residences and offices were a better use for the land than the established neighborhood there. So they took it. And now the Supreme Court has made their land grab legal.
The petitioners all live in the neighborhood with the Thames River as a scenic backdrop. One petitioner lives in a home that has been in her family since 1901. Her son's home, next door, has been in the family since 1903. Now all that will soon change. The NLDC will own the land but will lease it to developers for $1 a year. The city hopes those developers' projects will bring it $1.2 million in property taxes.
So what does this mean? Writing in dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it bluntly, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Unfortunately, O'Connor's opinion was not shared by justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer.
On behalf of that majority, Justice Stevens wrote, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept (public purpose) broadly"
Not only does this decision legalize taking property from individuals for the purpose of increasing a tax base. It also allows the government to cheat individual owners out of the appreciated values of their property. Owners - victims - will receive "fair" compensation, but who decides that? And is that compensation determined by present or future use?
We agree with the opinion expressed by Scott Bullock, the attorney representing the families, in The New York Times. "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today," he said. "Our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
Haven't you caught any of the liberal workshops on "framing" recently? There was lengthy one one C-Span not long ago and I watched it in the spirit of "know thine enemy," the way one studies the habits of a venomous snake. They're training the troops how to seize issues from "conservative control" and "frame" them from a "progressive" standpoint.
As a former advertising copywriter I saw much that was familiar to me from that medium. "Framing" is the essence of advertising -- and political propaganda. Try this Google search: "framing rockridge institute" and learn what the opposition's up to.
" If someone wants your land bad enough and has the resourses, they will get it. Law or No Law."
I wish I had a hundred cites to disprove that statement, but I don't think that is the case.
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.