|
-- Now go buy a Joni Mitchell CD or DVD!
Posted on 06/25/2005 10:42:41 AM PDT by lowbridge
My husband was listening to a talk show yesterday out of Baltimore and the host was mentioning that Ginsburg has a house in DC - and was wondering if the District might not need that property for soemthing or other??????
Wouldn't it be easier to change the supreme court ?
If you pay property taxes, (heh heh heh), the gubbmint is the owner. Ya'know what I mean Vern?
Feh! You own nothing, nor do I. "We all buy at the Company Store" and it's not about to change.
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"
Feh.
FMCDH(BITS)
I recognize that. In this instance the property owners were not protected by their state. Is that where you want to leave it?
I will say, that these property owners may have in this instance leap-frogged state remedies to appeal to the SCOTUS.
If that is true, they better get to the state capital post haste.
Those people in Connectthedots will be long gone even if CT rewrites the state law.
"I see dead people"
FMCDH(BITS)
Let's hope you're wrong, even if we both pretty much agree.
Yup -
All of those SCOTUS libs have homes around DC
Teddy Kennedy has oceanfront property on Hyannisport that would be great for the "common good" - an enviromental museum - with a new energt-producing wind farm right offshore
John Kerry-Heinz also has a little dump there on the water - plus one in Boston - 5-6 more in the US we know of - plus several abroad in countries that lean to Socialism
Why do Teddy & John need all of of that wasted land for themselves?
I agree.......why should only the little people be displaced?
That wind farm off of Hyannisport is definitely beneficial to the community as a whole - why should he be able to stop it? (rhetorical question, we all know why)
That is the furst chuckle I've gotten about this whole situation :) thanks.
How would state law stop federal entities like The National Park Service who might want to acquire a little land to help out a favored vendor or to help the Nature Conservancy to condemn a huge swath for a conservation easement? I'll bet they are already salivating at the prospect.
Where unalienable rights are concerned, both enumerated and non-enumerated, the state should protect it's Citizens from federal infringement. As a fail-safe, the federal government should protect Citizen's rights from infringement by the state. I would propose that as a rule rather than a guideline, if it isn't already the case. It's hard to tell these days.
Indeed he/she may. They need a search warrant for DNA just like blood or even your fingerprints. Probable Cause is still alive (although beaten down).
A few months ago I was staying at a hotel that hosted a lot of local company's managers. Since they have had problems in the past with these managers causing problems if they are out too late, the company started up a cerfew.
To enforce this, they station a (presumably off-duty) police officer in the lobby to get the names of people who come in after a certain time of night.
The cop asked my "may I have your name?" I said "no you may not."
His jaw dropped all the way to the floor. I then told him "as long as you wear that police uniform you are under color of authority. Asking my name is a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. You do know the Constitution, don't you?"
He was just thunderstruck as I walked away.
They will take me to prison before I surrender to random questions by the police just because they think they can.
How about "...for public use, without just compensation paid at the maximum valuation under the planned usage and the public use verified by 2/3 vote of the relevant state legislature." No eminent domain bill up for vote by the legislature can consider more than one property or property owner at a time. Any property taken will always revert to the original owner for a sum of $1 before it is sold to any other individual or entity."
...and if the government rents or grants concessions for any purpose to a private enterprise, the rent shall be paid to the original owner(s) at whatever rate the market will bear.
Governments love leasing valuable property to their cronies for $1 a year.
How about forming a corporation, positive like the enviros and one worlders like to form, that would define and protect private property rights, ownership rights of households in the Bourgeois Society? Call it the National Private Property Protection Society. NPPPS. Nip this in the bud. Well, it's a little past the bud state by a few centuries, but should be done. Remember, corporations are the second family.
I think you may be correct on another plane of the universe. However, your error is assuming that the words and clear meaning of the Constitution have any meaning whatsoever in the USSC's legislative sessions. They do not. It does not matter what the law is, unless it protects THEIR interests.
That is treating the symptom, not the disease.
The disease is these Supreme Court Justices have grown accustomed to interpreting anything written in the Constitution to refelct their personal opinions, regardless of what the written word states. The Fifth Amendment as written seem perfectly clear to me.
Obviously, its not to them.
This could easily become a rule. It should be valued in its intended use after the taking. What is the value of a bikepath or park? Zero dollars, by definition of the real estate market except as it affects the value of surrounding parcels. This is a tough one.
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.