Definition of Eminent Domain

me | 6-24-05 | jim_trent

[Captain Rhino]

Apparently, you missed this in your careful reading of the opinion.

From the last paragraph of the majority opinion (agreeing with the taking)(emphasis added):

"In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.21 We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek."

Seems pretty clear to me the court is indicating exactly what you should do if you don't like their ruling. (innuendo intended)

You will find your "loyal opposition" comment is beneath contempt if you read my postings.

[freeeee]

Even the DUmmies can see that.

I know. I lurked there as they went positively ballistic yesterday. One of them defended the decision and was widely branded a communist in DU of all places.

This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue. This is free people against communism. We're going to win in the long run. This is going to be a very costly decision for the elites.

[Redcloak]

According to the US Supreme Court, it's when you take real property from a poor or middle class person and give it as a gift to the wealthy person who contributed to your last campaign.

[Flyer]

Economic development might just turn them into prosperous taxpayers again

Indeed, it might.

But to remove someone from their home for the "greater good" is wrong.

[Captain Rhino]

No condescension intended. Unlike most Supreme Court decisions, it really is short and does not involve a lot of complicated theoretical legal reasoning. The comment really was meant as an encouragement to read it (vice be intimidated by it.) It was added as an afterthought and I'll obviously have to word it better if I use it again.

[Lazamataz]

No, that's corruption of a public official and you get indicted and go to jail (along with the public official).

That's the theory. It is NOT the practice.

[gopheraj]

I agree. In the Hye/Stonewall, Tx area, there were a lot of farms that had been in familes for over a hundred years and was condemned by the state so that LBJ could have a state park. Of course, they got "compensated" but who can compensate someone whose parents and grandparents lived there.

[Captain Rhino]

Only if you believe the courts and the entire legal system are incapable, however imperfectly, of rendering justice. And if you believe that is the case in the United States, do you have a example of a country where it is functioning to your satisfaction?

[savedbygrace]

I read it yesterday. The majority opinion effectively changes the language of the 5th from "public use" to "public purpose". That is the big deal about this decision.

The USSC is once again amending the Constitution without a 2/3 vote in the Congress or a 3/4 vote among the States.

So, thanks for pointing people to the opinion posted at FindLaw. It shows exactly what is being done with this case, and it is a very bad thing. Future cases will measure the facts against the term "public purpose" rather than "public use". So, the Founders' Constitution is shredded in this regard.

[RightWhale]

The taking of private property has been going on as long as there has been gov't. It has been going on since the Constitution was signed. It has been entirely legal. The surprise with this decision is that so many are shocked. Reality can be shocking.

[Sally'sConcerns]

Now can Cities have a right to cross county lines. If a rural county is next to a major city can the city say "we have no where to go but over there"?

See Houston, Texas. County seat of Harris County...but City of Houston expanded some years ago into Fort Bend County and other surrounding counties.

[Captain Rhino]

No, I don't and I'm not a lawyer, investor, or anything else involved with construction (as my wife would readily demonstrate by pointing out my seemingly innumerable botched projects around our home).

[You Dirty Rats]

Seems pretty clear to me the court is indicating exactly what you should do if you don't like their ruling.

The Opinion of the Court was very respectful of Federalism. How hypocritical. The Liberals on the Court hate Federalism and only use it when they need it to get the result they want. When they didn't want it on the medicinal marijuana case, they junked it in a flash.

Thomas is consistent, though, since he applied the plain language of the Fifth Amendment to show that the drift away from original intent has just gone too far. (His embrace of the incorporation doctrine is not Federalist, of course, but that issue is pretty much settled. Nobody would argue that states can conduct searches in clear violation of Amendment IV, nor impose cruel and unusual punishments).

[Captain Rhino]

Ad hominen attacks are not permitted. Make your case with the facts at issue or quit the field.

[freeeee]

"Pure unadulterated communism"

Only if you believe the courts and the entire legal system are incapable, however imperfectly, of rendering justice.

Communism has defining characteristics. A properly running legal system (which we lack) is irrelevent to that fact.

The chief defining characteristic of communism is that the economic "common good" is held to be superior to private property rights. Court decisions do nothing to change that.

Your claim is analguous to saying a motor vehicle is something else because of the competence of its driver.

[null and void]

LOL! Fair enough. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

[Baseballguy]

Folks its not communism you here is Socialism


so·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "socialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

[Baseballguy]

com·mu·nism Audio pronunciation of "Communism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

[null and void]

Only if you believe the courts and the entire legal system are incapable, however imperfectly, of rendering justice.

Perhaps I'm a little jaundiced here? I just lost $75,000 because a drunk/drugged up woman tried to grab a less than one day old puppy from mommy dog, and got bit.

Did I mention that I wasn't there?

Did I mention that it's NOT MY DOG?

See tag line...

[jpsb]

You will make a very fine serf.