[Happy2BMe]

Outrage is what started this great nation. It was the catalyst for the events leading up to the signing of our Declaration of Independence.

[flada]

Not to quibble over fine details, but it's actually the 4th Amendment that prohibits the seizing of private property. The 5th prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, without making any mention of the taking of private property for private use.

However none of this has stopped the government from taking your private property and redistributing it to other private citizens in the form of welfare and other socialist schemes. I'm equally outraged by these violations of our 4th and 5th Amendment protections--have been for many years.

[shield]

IMPEACH THE BLACK ROBES...it's an impeachable offense when rulings are not according to the ORGANIC CONSTITUTION!!!!

It appears we've got at least 5 blk robes in the supreme court that should be IMPEACHED!!!!

[RetiredArmy]

My response to the county government that would seek to take my property is: COME ON OVER AND GET IT. MAKE SURE TO BRING ALONG YOUR FRIENDLY SWAT TEAM, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU ARE GOING TO EVICT ME. I have had it with these stinking government bureaucrats. Enough is a stinking enough.

[mabelkitty]

Cornyn is wrong.
It should be illegal. Period.
Go talk to the Cubans in Florida and ask them to tell you about their homes and business that Castro seized.
Not much different in the Kelo ruling.
There will be deaths over this - political careers and physically, I'm sure.

[Mobilemitter]

"The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use."

...if federal funds were used AND if the transfer was for purposed of economic development rather than public use.... well that just warms me up ALL over. This only restricts FEDERALLY funded smack downs. If we are going to amend the amended amendment (think about how stupid we are) to try and keep others from doing the same.... then we should also try and define it so that EVEN LAWYERS AND POLITICIANS GET IT = It is now and forever forbidden for government to ever, for whatsoever reason your wee brains might fart, to take property from one individual and give it to another individual--PERIOD.

We no longer have federal judges, we have feral judges and it is time for a RED HOT and BLUE BBQ!!!!

[Seadog Bytes]

RE: "The Supreme Court ruled that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen -- if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base."

Anybody know...Would this decision then, by logical extension, ALSO apply to properties such as the 'Headlands Forest'...??? ...and/or other such 'protected' properties which are currently 'owned' by "non-profit" (NGO, 'green' conservatorship-type, yet none-the-less 'private') entities???

I'd certainly think that getting the forest-products industry started up again in America's Northwest might well "...boost the (local) community's (communities') economic development and its (their) tax base(s)."

Just curious. Thanks.