Posted on 08/19/2007 9:05:41 AM PDT by B4Ranch
Property Rights activist and ranger, Wayne Hage said, "Either you have the right to own property or you are property." The backbone of the plan was a call for "public/private partnerships."
Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Saying the Supreme Court "passed a law" is far from not crossing a t or dotting an i.
I think Kelo was bad law. Happy?
As usual...you are a liar. Cite the post wherein I stated that Kelo was "a matter of settled law". You, once again, twist and misrepresent what I said. I specifically stated that the COURTS ARE MAKING LAWS...this in response to your tag team co-liar toad, who attempted to ridicule yorkie for stating that the courts are making laws, something that they do, via CASE LAW. Now, speak to the substance of the article, or go jump off a cliff.
No. You are "merely" lying, again, as you are prone to do. That you are a liar does not make me the one who is "clueless."
You are your tag-team co-liar need to reimburse whomever it is that you have sold your souls to for 30 pieces of silver...as you lie about, smear, and misrepresent statements made by patriotic conservative Americans.
Perhaps you wish to revisit your comment #87: “It’s called Kelo v. New London, and it is being used to steal private property away from American citizens via legislation from the bench. Quibbling over what it is called or not called, it is, in fact, a law, case or otherwise.”
Perhaps YOU need to reread it...this time, for what it actually states, not what YOU misrepresenting, again, what it says.
You claim it is “law,” yet the opinion leaves the matter open to the States by its own admission. That’s the problem with your argument, friend.
Case law is legislation from the bench. It is a severe problem in this country. Attempting to act as if you or toad are ignorant of this very serious problem is disingenous, at best, especially when any person in their right minds know very well about activist judges and what they are doing to undermine the constitution via their orders....which are being enforced through the executive branch, "when necessary."
As I earlier stated, Kelo is being used to further TAKINGS/THEFT via eminent domain. As this article discusses this type of theft, Kelo was and is an appropriate example to use regarding laws being made/government theft via judicial fiat.
If you and your ilk would ever quit lying, misrepresenting, or obfuscating the valid points of what posters actually state...and could ever actually admit you and your ilks' posts, and apparent existence to post on FR, are but to derail sentiments expressed against globalist agendas....you and your globalist shill ilk would at least be honest shills instead of lying shills.
Case in point as to how Kelo is being USED to further government thievery:
Fifth Circuit Decides Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Case:KELO is being used, in many states, to allow takings of private land. It is, therefore, CASE LAW being used to further government thievery.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court has handed down its decision, in Western Seafood Co. v. City of Freeport, a noteworthy post-Kelo eminent domain case that I blogged about back in June (hat tip to Wright Gore, President of the Western Seafood Company). Western Seafood involves the condemnation of part of a property owner's lot for transfer to a neighboring business so that the latter can build a marina for the asserted purpose of promoting "economic development" in the area. As I expected, the court rejected the property owner's claim that this condemnation violates the Takings Clause of federal Constitution.
The Court's opinion on the federal issue is a fairly straightforward application of Kelo. In Kelo, the Supreme Court of course of course held that "economic development" is sufficient justification to allow condemnation of private property for transfer to a new private owner. Moreover, as I explained in detail in my previous post on Western Seafood, Kelo virtually immunizes from challenge any economic development condemnation that is undertaken pursuant to an "integrated redevelopment plan." Virtually all economic development takings - including that in Western Seafood - are undertaken as part of some sort of plan.
The Fifth Circuit did, however, remand the case to the District Court for further consideration of Western Seafood's claim that the taking violates the Texas state constitution. The opinion notes that Texas state courts use state legislation as a guide to interpretation of the state constitution's Takings Clause, and that Texas enacted a post-Kelo reform law after the District Court reached its initial decision rejecting Western Seafood's claim. It will be interesting to see how the District Court resolves the state constitutional issue. However, I am not terribly optimistic about Western Seafood's prospects. To the extent that state constitutional issue turns on the impact of the new Texas post-Kelo statute, it is likely to cut in favor of the government, since that statute does very little to constrain economic development takings (see my analysis of the Texas law in this paper, pp. 73-75).
Any order is CASE LAW, which subsequent courts, and lawyers, look to further entrench that same ruling. I NEVER SAID it was "settled law." You are a liar and misrepresented what I said.
Kelo is CASE LAW, entered by the HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, and therefore, it has a major impact and influence on all other eminent domains cases across the country.
Stop acting so dishonest about what a SCOTUS ruling means within the courts and how it will impact EVERY SINGLE STATE.
2. If you wish to cite to another case (as you have), I'll take a look at it when I have the chance. I'd rather read the actual opinion itself instead of reading what you found some blogger to write after a frantic Google search. Your standards of evidence, frankly, suck.
Go back and read where your co-lying shill ilk started in on yorkie, at the get go....and you both can stop acting innocent about what yorkie meant and why the toad posted what he did to yorkie.
It was to derail the topic away from attacking the globalist agenda and to attack a conservative American who dared not to “cross her t” precisely the way the toad wanted it.
We all know what you represent, and it is no kind of patriotic CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN agenda....you are both globalist shills.
I’m sorry that you do not understand that “settled” law and “case” law are (in most cases, and certainly within the grasp of your feeble mind in this case) synonymous. It simply points to your ignorance of the law in general.
The Fifth Circuit did, however, remand the case to the District Court for further consideration of Western Seafood's claim that the taking violates the Texas state constitution. The opinion notes that Texas state courts use state legislation as a guide to interpretation of the state constitution's Takings Clause, and that Texas enacted a post-Kelo reform law after the District Court reached its initial decision rejecting Western Seafood's claim.Now, how can this be, nicmarlo? I thought Kelo is "case law?"
I’m sorry that you don’t understand that toad was attempting to make it appear as though judges have no ability to make laws....they do, via case law.
There is NO OTHER definition for laws made via the bench. They are called CASE LAW.
Now you are quibbling yet again from the entire point that yorkie made: judges are issuing rulings that are being followed in this country....and those rulings are ignoring/overturning/changing laws made by the legislators.
Here’s another thing that you need to get through your pea-brain. I’m not arguing on behalf of anyone else. I am arguing on my behalf. I’d rather you direct your comments to me and the arguments I’m making, instead of yelping about someone else.
Kelo is case law. As I said, they are USING KELO to further future rulings for government thievery. I NEVER SAID it would cause 100% of the time, rulings in favor of the government thievery. But the government is USING KELO for that very reason when it files for eminent domain.
Thank you for making my point. Depending upon the judges, and laws being passed by states, some AMERICAN CITIZENS may actually not have their PRIVATE PROPERTY STOLEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.
If you’re going to come on a thread, and lie about and misrepresent what I said, it behooves you to actually read first what your co-liar said, since you are using his lies as a springboard for your own.
And I'm neither a globalist nor a shill.
Now you mock ignorance.
The smell when you appear is more than I can take.
If you wish to move the goalposts to where they stand given your last comment, be my guest. No argument here.
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.