Bush has a proud record of defending private property, look how he was opposed to taking of private property, to build a baseball stadium.
If people want to buy property with deed restrictions to maintain a neighborhood, that is their choice, but for the Government to zone, or worse, re-zone your land after you have purchased it is tyranny.
SO9
Tagline bump.
seize an abortion clinic and put up a Wal-Mart.
muhahahahaha....
Until the courts are drastically changed so that we have judges who respect the right to property, the only way to prevent the abuse of eminent domain is for citizens to hold their elected officials in local government accountable. The voters must use the ballot box to make it too dangerous for elected local officials to even think about confiscating land for private development.
Bump!
Some mega bucks developer who bribed some freaking clerk making $40k will try to foreclose on Grandapa Jones - but Grandpa Jones has a shotgun. And ole Grandpa will use it on the process server with the eviction notice or the 1st bulldozer that shows up on his property.
(not advocating violence, only predicting it)
Now that the morning laugh is out of the way, when hillary flies this happens.
Fat chance on it being reversed.
In 1906, a case called C.B. & Q Railway v. Drainage Comm'rs., 200 U.S. 561 began the journey of expanding the police powers to encompass the "public welfare." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434825/posts
The police powers are the power of government to regulate the use of private property to protect substantial injury to the general public health, safety (and morals.) For private property, stretching from English law way back into Roman law, this was the extent of government's regulatory powers not requiring just compensation.
There was also something called a "public franchise." This included bridges, public houses (taverns), sometimes community silos, public transportation - boats, taxis, etc.
Because they were generally licensed and were broadly and communally used by the public in a quasi-monopoly situation, they were burdened with additional government regulatory powers for the "general welfare" or "public benefit."
The case cited above was a Railroad case (public franchise.) It became the foundation of precident cited and applied in subsequent cases concerning private property. The subtleties of "private" and "public franchise" were apparently lost to the court. Now we end up compleletly losing the distinction between private property and that clothed with a public interest that can be taken or regulated to promote the general welfare.
comrades at the u.s. supreme court will understand that they overreacted on this one!
a civics lesson in the making.
if the pubies play it right, a win in 2008.
It's not just Washington. I once interviewed for a job at New Jersey Institute of Technology. I withdrew my name from consideration when I found that I'd have to live in Pennsylvania. Prices new Newark were just out of sight.
Thanks fo your post. Bump.
It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.
For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:
I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.
He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.