Posted on 06/24/2005 10:19:47 AM PDT by dead
Artile 5 only seems to deal with the ratification of new ammendments and changes to the constitution. I didn't see anything about emmenent domain. If you are saying that the supreme court shouldn't be inventing laws, I agree, but it seems all they did was uphold the right of city governments and not the federal government to determine when it is necessary. They didn't make any new laws. I'm not terrified of this ruling - I'm not about to head for the hills.
And yep, been a freeper since last year. I don't agree with everything I read here. But on other things, like abortion, I've actually switched my original opinions. Regarding abortion, I'm now thoroughly against it where I used to think it was perfectly fine. Same thing with "assault weapons" - I now know this is simply the dems' way of spreading fear and gaining more power. I could go on. Convince me how this ruling is bad for America. I believe in trusting our government, for the most part, and changing the things we don't like.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or navel forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or Public danger: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC use without just compensation.”
mudblood said:
”If you are saying that the supreme court shouldn't be inventing laws, I agree”
Good then you would agree when taking property from one individual and giving it to another doesn’t in anyway mean it is for ‘public use.’
This will hurt real estate markets onplaces like suburban NJ and greatly help markets in places like New York City, where use of eminent domain is unheard of. In Chelsea, NYC where I am, the last time it was used was in 1931 to tear down abandoned tenements to built a Ma Bell station.
How did the liberals react to this ruling?Pretty negatively for the most part.
And it was the LIBERALS on the SC who pushed this travesty through.
This is NOT the same America I came to love and cherish as a child.
I thought eminent domain was used in the redevelopment of downtown Brooklyn. (Metro-Tech etc...)
Urban renewal project have been considered public use for a long time.
Not that I want to start a debate on this, but the way I remember, the entire premise of the founding of the US of A was a strong distrust of government. So much so that the Constitution was written to bind its power tightly and to protect the people from it.
As Mr. Franklin said when asked what form of government the framers had devised, "A republic, if you can keep it." That implies not trust, but constant surveillance of the operation on the part of the citizens, IMO.
SVD is referring to Article V of the Amendments (amendments are also referenced in Article V of the body of the Constitution. click here to read the US Constitution
click here to read the Amendments to the Constitution
The first ten amendendents to the Constitution are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, a package of amendments ratified as part of the Constitution, without which several of the original colonies would not ratify the Constitution. There is a preamble to the Bill of Rights that explains why this was the case - read it here that is deliberately omitted from most reproductions of the Amendments and Constitution, but nevertheless, it exists.
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It clearly states "just compensation". Where can you go from there?
You seem to be stuck on those two words, to the exclusion of the many thousands before and after in the founding documents and historical records of the United States.
Yes it says "just compensation." But it doesn’t say for private use, it says for public use.
When you no longer have control over your property, the property is no longer yours it is societies. Is that a capitalist state or a socialist state, I ask you?
Public use could be cleaning up a seedy part of town with rundown buildings and liquor stores on every corner. Its all in how you define it.
Yes and the SCOTUS chose to define it as any way for the city to make a profit.
"Yes and the SCOTUS chose to define it as any way for the city to make a profit."
Clearly I've been defining it as removing problem areas within a city. The supreme court defined the entire issue as a non-federal issue and threw it back to the city governments to decide. If you have a problem with the decisions that your city government makes, try coming out for local elections (and I paint everyone with that brush, because the turnout is always pitifully low for these elections).
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.