Fact is, we have some fairly murky ideas of the nature of property.
I like it. It's too bad it needs that clarification.
Leave the federal law alone, IMHO and have the state laws address it. Not all states allow such takings and no state should.
So, doesn't using a suspect's DNA to connect him to a crime fall under this clause?
Don't mess with the Constitution, impeach the judges.
The awfulness of this ruling is 5 bastards took the word "public" and changed it to mean "private developers."
5th Amendment BUMP.
Get a rope!
I have updated my FMCDH (From My Cold Dead Hands) sign-off with the addition of (BITS).....Blood In The Streets, which I foresee coming soon, due to the enormous increase of the Marxist progressive movement being shoved down the throat of this failing REPUBLIC through the Judicial tyranny of fiat law, the passing of unconstitutional laws by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government and the enormous tax burden placed upon the average American to support unconstitutional programs put forth by Marxist ideology.
I do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee.
FMCDH(BITS)
So if you own the a piece of right in the middle of a planned runway and don't want to sell, you could stop the whole project? I could imagine Green Peace buying up strategic pieces of property just to stop various projects. They tried and failed to to this to stop new electrical transmission lines from being built, but the federal courts prevented them from blocking the construction. Eminent domain is used precisely because some property owners don't want to sell. I object to the Supreme Court ruling that defines "public use" so broadly that any piece of property can be confiscated so it can be sold to other private interests that can make it more valuable and generate a higher tax base. I think the owner of the property should be paid not for the value of the current use of the property but for the value of its hightest use.
Wouldn't it be easier to change the supreme court ?
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."
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.
applause. I can think of a number of other things to stick in there too...
Efforts to "fix" the Fifth are doomed to fail as long as the court has justices who refuse to be restrained by the text of the document.
We could start this discussion by asking a simple question: What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? And how long ago did the Court start nullifcation by interpretation? In the case of the Second, almost 70 years ago with Miller.
There is a saying in politics: personnel is policy. This matter is a really a personnel problem. Impeach the Justices who cannot or will not read the plain text. Replace them with Justices who will.
Better idea, impeach the judges who ruled badly on this issue. Trust me when I say that if they can find away around the clear language of the takings clause, they will be able to get around anything.
I love the thought, but that's the purpose of the states power to condemn property under eminent domain, to take the property against the will and over the objections of the property owner. The purpose and use of the taking is at issue, not whether the state can take it.