Indianapolis, Indiana rushes to use SC ruling to seize property

FOX News

[jeffers]

Last night's local Fox News ran a story that our local government is looking at using this precedent to force downtown landowners out to make room for a new sports stadium.

This was followed by a story announcing a new plan for a rapid transit system which will require the displacement of tens of thousands of homes and businesses.

it's as if the government here has been planning and waiting for this decision to be handed down, and can't wait to start seizing property under this travesty of justice.

No one is safe, not anywhere in the country.

Any state can pass a law saying we won't do it today, and later, when the furor dies down, quietly change the law back to business as usual.

The Constitution is supoposed to be our final line of protection, but the Supreme Court abdicated their authority.

Or worse.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

IMPEACH the bastards...all 5 of them.

That's not going to happen. This one is up to We The People.

[jeffers]

"If the statium is going to be publically owned, yesterdays ruling has no effect on this type of eminent domain.

Yesterdays cse was about private development not public development"

All true. However, day before yesterday, the stadium plan was limited to one large city block. Since the Supreme Court's abdication of Constitutional protection, the comment from the city that comes first to mind is "Now we can seize everything down to the freeway for parking."

The landowners there are justifiably terrified.

Joanie, excellent post.

To all.

I have resisted this for decades now, but in light of this travesty, I see no choice but to significantly increase my militia affiliations. I believe that this issue will be resolved to our satisfaction without the need for violent resistence, the polls are running 90% vehemently against, several Congressmen at the State level are running to capitalize on this pool of potential votes, and the better part of the media is firmly in our corner.

But this system is irretreviably broken.

Basic rights, property rights, the right to bear arms, freedom of the press, etc, are not to be determined at the whim of state governments. The Constitution is our last line of defense from those who would subjugate these freedoms, and with this decision, the arbiter of the Constitution has taken a powder.

We can no longer depend on the Supreme Court for Justice.

It is our responsibility to ensure that the mechanisms necessary to defend our freedoms are constantly in place, always available, and with the Supreme Court's abdication, our only recourse is now the Second Amendment.

I urge all of you to arm yourselves, and to increase your alliances and affiliations to meet this growing threat to our freedom.

The fight is being brought to each of our doorsteps, literally now. You can plan for it and prepare, or you can ignore the obvious truths we see in the daily news and suffer the consequences.

The choice is up to each of you, but these are the only two choices now available to you.

A government can only rule by the consent of the governed, and I hereby officially withdraw that consent.

[Euro-American Scum]

The First is gone, too, of course...went out with so-called campaign finance reform.

But when CFR came down, everybody (on this and other conservative sites) just loved it. Hailed the President's political savvy in stealing the issue out from under the Libs and looked with eager anticipation for SCOTUS to strike it down.

And anyone who connected CFR to an erosion of the First Amendment was branded a socialist.

[EternalVigilance]

But when CFR came down, everybody (on this and other conservative sites) just loved it. Hailed the President's political savvy in stealing the issue out from under the Libs and looked with eager anticipation for SCOTUS to strike it down.

There were a few here who did that. But not most, and certainly not I.

And anyone who connected CFR to an erosion of the First Amendment was branded a socialist.

Hmmm...never heard that bit of backwards thinking.

[Minuteman23]

I read just about all of your posts because they are so good, but you were at your absolute best last night.

You have Email.

[AmishDude]

First, I do not "come from" a collectivist society.

Second, I wholeheartedly oppose this ruling, but I'm not willing to lie about its implications.

[SiliconValleyGuy]

Somebody on another thread a while ago suggested that you sould be Attorney General. This post would look really good on your resume for that position. ;)

Check your email.

[MinorityRepublican]

If you'd like to let Pfizer know how you feel about corporations manipulating our governments and courts to throw people out of their homes in pursuit of profits, here are some contact numbers:

THis has to be bad publicity for Pfizer. But I have to be honest here. I need their medicine.

[ForGod'sSake]

But when CFR came down, everybody (on this and other conservative sites) just loved it. Hailed the President's political savvy in stealing the issue out from under the Libs and looked with eager anticipation for SCOTUS to strike it down.

And anyone who connected CFR to an erosion of the First Amendment was branded a socialist.

Dead wrong on both actually. Maybe you were dreaming.

A lightly attended poll on FR pre signing:

Free Republic Opinion Poll: What should President Bush do with the CFR Bill?

Composite Opinion
Veto it.	81.2%		351
Sit on it.	11.6%		50
Sign it.	7.2%		31
	100.0%		432
Member Opinion
Veto it.	81.2%		342
Sit on it.	11.9%		50
Sign it.	6.9%		29
	100.0%		421
Non-Member Opinion
Veto it.	81.8%		9
Sign it.	18.2%		2
Sit on it.	0.0%		0
	100.0%		11

Cheers,

FGS

[WhatPriceFreedom?]

Joanie, have you ever done a geneological search of your family roots? Surely you have Thomas Paine in your bloodline!

Thank you for a great read.

[JSteff]

"Actually the legislative and executive are co-equal branches with the judicial. All elected officials are responsible. Notice the silence from the President"

Sorry. The precedent was set in FLA just last year. It did not even take the supreme court of FLA just one probate judge. What the legislature ruled all appeals courts just declared as improperly written and so it was done.

What makes anyone think it will be any different at the federal level? The judiciary nationwide is doing an incremental power grab, nobody really pays attention.

Now we see what the liberals have been doing for the last 30 years. They have the press, almost total control of the administrative departments, and the courts. We can elect who ever we want and it does not matter. For goodness sake, we control both houses and the presidency and the libs still get their way or our position is water down to appease the liberals and the press.

It is so important that the SCOTUS replacements in the next few years are strongly conservative. If the constitutional option (not nuclear option!) is necessary then so be it.

If we don't get the court loaded conservative the libs will win it all with their next cycle of congressional and presidential control.

If the SCOTUS appointments are not strongly conservative look out because the liberal socialism/communism will be locked in for a generation or more..

Jefferson, many of the founders, and even Lincoln spoke of what options there are then. The question then will be; how many citizens will be willing to take the risks and make the sacrifices that would entail?

[JSteff]

"This is why the Dems fight so hard to keep conservatives off the bench. A group of 5 unelected officials have just destroyed property rights in the US."

Correction. A group of 5 unelected officials have just destroyed PRIVATE property rights in the US. Government rights to take private property by decree were soundly reinforced.

[JSteff]

Excellent post on this thread. I too have been stewing over this ruling. The saddest part is that this will not even strike any note with most of the citizens of the country.

They are so jaded by the incredible audacity of politicians and public administrative officials it just does not even register any more.

What a shame. I wonder what will get them to react?

[jeremiah]

So true, the problem as I see it is Republican voters are willing to invest the power in the people they elect, then blindly support them. Of course the Dummies do the same thing. The American system was set up to be a self correcting machine, with each branch jealously guarding their power. We now have a Senate that is full of those that bought a title for themselves. The USSC that is run by the ACLU in the form of Ginsberg, and a President that is weak and over his head.

I voted for Bush twice, but have been disappointed because of his lack of leadership. People make excuses, and put ideas and words to his actions. But his silence as this land grab goes on, and his signing of the CFR bill, has sold us down the river.

[Badray]

bump for later

[metesky]

Stadiums and rapid transit schemes were both considered legitimate public uses long before the SCOTUS ruling, so why would the city wait until after?

Someone is just trying to incite the troops.

[jeffers]

"Stadiums and rapid transit schemes were both considered legitimate public uses long before the SCOTUS ruling, so why would the city wait until after?"

Indeed, WHY would they?

Why would they say, specifically, shortly after the decision was announced, "NOW we can take this thing all the way down to the freeway, parking problems solved, and room to spare"?

Perhaps because the Supreme Court's decision kicks the legs out from under anyone who might have otherwise tried to actually obtain "fair market value" for their property?

Perhaps because the parking concessions, and well, sure, new hotels, condos and fine resteraunts in the newly "found" space will be PRIVATELY OWNED?

I don't claim to know the answer, all I know is what was said.

"Someone is just trying to incite the troops."

Mmmmhmmm, yes they are, though I would have worded it, "Some trolls are trying to excite potential investors".

[metesky]

Check my tag line...

[Justa]

"Stadiums and rapid transit schemes were both considered legitimate public uses long before the SCOTUS ruling, so why would the city wait until after?"

Have you read the decision? Do you have any idea what the case was about? Why was the taking able to be challenged in the first place? It was challenged because the beneficiary of the taking was a private party, not the public. The Constitution and the 5th Amendment hitherto restricted Emminent Domain to property dedicated to public usage.

Are you aware of what rights were clarified and enumerated in the ruling? FYI the 5th's Emminent Domain definition of "public use" was redefined to = private economic development and an anticipation of tax revenue. Ergo, Emminent Domain can now be used for the benefit of private parties so long as the state anticipates an increase in tax revenue. What property is safe from that?

[metesky]

1.)The article happens to be bitching about takings that were legal before the recent SCOTUS decision.

2.) Don't presume to lecture me on this or any other subject.