Posted on 06/24/2005 7:28:56 AM PDT by Constitution Day
I'd like to think so.
This time the SCOTUS went too far. I haven't talked to anyone who supports this decision, and I've talked to people with different political philosophies, from conservative to libertarian to liberal.
Anyone knows that it's wrong to kick Americans out of the homes to build a new shopping center. Furthermore, most Americans thought that the plain reading of the US Constitution said so. The SCOTUS has gone mad, at least, on this ruling.
Did you hear Neil Cavuto yesterday? He interviewed one of the people who is having their home destroyed. The town originally offered him 60K for a 10 room home on the water front. Hell the water front property alone is worth a 1/4 million. From what I gather, he tells Neil, he ain't moving.
FLY THE FLAG UPSIDE-DOWN ON JULY 4 TO SHOW CITIZEN CONCERN ABOUT OUR COUNTRY BEING IN GENUINE DISTRESS. This IS a legitimate AND ALREADY LEGAL means of protest. . . .
I THINK my new tag-line is going to become, "It's the Legal Industry, stupid!" The Supreme Court rubber-stamped the activity already afoot in NC AND numerous other states, municipalities, and counties. (THE NC BAR "DEVELOPED" ALL THE NC REAL ESTATED DOCUMENTS ANYWAY!)
Its THE LAWYERS who are truly redefining what "is" is in each and every board of adjustments and planning board meeting around the state! EVERY lawyer on the Supreme Court is well aware of the legal industry's gain to be made in all of this, as well as was EVERY lawyer involved up and down the ladder from New London to the Supreme Court.
The legal industry simply has TOO MUCH power through legislative and court access in this country. Wait till you see what's in store next from our new elite, land-holding class (the legal industry) after THIS one. . . .
FLY THE FLAG UPSIDE-DOWN ON JULY 4!
Blessings,
Hubert D. Rabon
Union Co., NC (The NC nexus of evil.)
Section 40A-7 on the acquisition of whole properties doesn't impress me; I think a slick lawyer for a "private condemnor" (I didn't even realize that any state had such an idea as "private" as opposed to "public" condemnor) could use (a) to acquire property under (b) that would be otherwise unobtainable under the general limitations.
Also, I don't like all of those references to other parts of the code as defining permissible condemnations. It seems to me that it be very easy to backdoor something into one of those other sections that then would be referenced by parts of Chapter 40A, subverting the limitations of 40A in a particularly devious fashion.
But certainly the intent of Chapter 40A is laudable: to limit condemnations to justifiable public use. Every state should adopt some version of this, but I doubt they will. In fact, I imagine that states such as North Carolina will see an assault on laws like Chapter 40A limiting condemnation.
They probably have lackeys to surf for them and screen out every shred of reality aimed in their direction.
I really don't believe they give a darn about the opinions of us uncouth, clods of the colonies-they just live for the approval of those european elites and world opinion.
I'd like to see an amendment added to the state constitution preventing this.
>Existing North Carolina law<
Wouldn't it just take one session of the legislature to change your law? Or, is there an amendment to your state's constitution?
You hit the nail on the head with that one. Maybe we will get lucky, they will quit and move to France!
Me too! Remember that proposed toll road, where our State government claimed the power under the eminent domain clause, to condemn private land and steal it from owners, to give it to a powerful private for profit enterprise?
Wonder why the railroads didn't detour around the farm of the James family in Missouri? The tracks did a lot of twisting and turning through the Rocky Mountains? Maybe Mountains are unaware of Eminent Domain.
Sometime we must give up our land for the common good-sometimes our lives. I have a suggestion regarding both sacrifices: When a citizen of these United States is forced to forfeit claim to property for the common good-property they had no intentions of selling in the first place. The owner has every right to expect an offer for the land that is at least twice the present appraisal value of the property, but never less than the expected value of the land , once it has been developed.
LOL! Poor France.
Doesn't make feel any better either. But I've forwarded to some friends in NC. Thanks for the post.
Why could they not appeal from the state supreme court?
I'm of the old fashioned opinion that someone's house is their house. A sale can only be made with the consent of the owner. Anything else is theft and tyranny. 'Public good' be damned. The true 'public good' is respecting private rights above all else.
Thanks for the laugh!
You are welcome.
I'm with you, but the public domain theft of private land has been with us, almost from the get go. I think it sucks, but if it is going to be forced upon some of us from time to time, and it will. Those of us to whom it happens, deserve to be compensated so generousely that future robber barons will hesitate before stealing our property.
Short answer? No. States have the Constitutonal power to use Eminent Domain as described in the decision, but that does not mean they have to.
The state supreme court is the top court in state constitution related issues. The US supreme court does not address issues with state constitutions. The way that I understand it, you can only appeal a state supreme court decision to a higher court if it is a federal issue. If the issue is specifically addressed in the state constitution, then the feds have no jurisdiction.
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.