Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
>>>Impeach and remove judges who do not follow the Constitution but instead add to it their own social biases.
How do we do this?
No! Put the blame where it belongs. The local legislators who passed the bill suck, and they are the ones worthy of the voters' wrath.
I am not a fan of eminent domain laws, but it is mentioned in the Constitution as permissible: 5th Amendment - "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." What I don't want is the courts to be there 2nd guessing the Constitution because of what they deem "fair."
Now perhaps the case can be made that the compensation being offered is not just, or perhaps they can argue that turning the land over to a developer does not qualify as "public use." I'm no lawyer. But we need to get over this idea that ultimate power resides in the Courts, lest that virtually unaccountable body get too big for its britches.
.
Well, it would facilitate our communication if you would just frame your position instead of meandering along aimlessly. When I need to organize my thoughts, I like to use numbered items.
1) I certainly do not want the President to ever overrule the Supreme Court by fiat.
2) Nor do I want mob rule.
3) Nor do I want a parliamentary system.
4) Nor do I agree that the Supreme Court is the supreme authority.
So, we are in fundamental disagreement.
And your estimate of the probability of that is?
Not exactly, but your post would not have gotten zapped if you had chosen your words differently ;o)
'Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.'
Insane. Just insane.
Apparently. After the SC ruling the gov. can take your house, give it to me if I promise to improve it or rebuild bigger and better, generating more tax revenue.
Then of course you have a MINORITY of SINators writing a letter to the PRESIDENT today, informing him he dam# well better check with them before he nominates anyone else for the courts.
Then you have one of the most obscene excuses for a human being, who also happens to be in the minority, asking a man of excellent reputation and integrity if it is not time for him to resign.
Some days I get up and think I am in Iraq pre March 2003 and the 20% Sunni minority is suppressing and torturing the majority. Believe me, listening to and looking at these moronic numb skulls is torture. Where's AI to fight for my human rights. I should have a right not to be subjected to the demonRATS.......................but I digress. Sorry.
The Congress has authority over the supreme court, according to the constitution.
Sadly, We The People cannot. But our elected representatives can! Of course, that would require that they grow cajones and actually give a damn what We The People want.
The key words are "public use" - private development is not "public use" even if they generate taxes.
Hmmmmm.... "The Knock of the Personal Attacks"...
Sounds like the title of a mystery thriller!
It was a cold and rainy night...
Willie Green was pounding on his computer keyboard, ranting at CAFTA and the NWO...
Suddenly, there was a loud knock at the front door...
"Hark!" exclaimed Willie. "Who's knocking on my door at THIS time of night?"
Slooooowly he approaches the front portal, peeping through the peephole before unlocking the deadbolt...
"Aaarrrggghhh!!!! It's another flying monkey coming at me with a personal attack!!!
I SHOULDA KNOWN just by the sound of that KNOCK!!!
Yes, the constitution is impractical, "given the diverse and always evolving needs of society."
Let's just throw it in the trash, along with Ellen Tausher's 'little blue dress.'
"You're going to see a whole slew of seizures around this country, and it'll be a total wildfire."
We are already seeing on our local news various city counsel members stating they have big plans for their new found tyranny.
Here in Denver there are many homes of insignificant value scattered throughout desirable locations. The city would LOVE to condemn those homes for sale to builders who will build million dollar homes. They now can.
There are many busy streets that are old and have old home sitting on valuable property. The city can condemn those homes.
There are a number of horse properties in Parker, Colorado, just outside Denver. Ten years ago it was “way out there”. Today, it is a prime town joining the mextroplex. The town of Parker would just love to subdivide those horse properties of 5-30 acres into housing projects. They now can.
South of Denver are some fantastic plateaus with awesome views. There are some expensive, large properties there, but due to how taxes are calculated they draw little revenue for the country in property taxes. The county would love to subdivide those properties and gain properties worth millions. They now can.
Throughout surrounding counties are “farms”, well, properties that make federal standards for a farm by having two cows and a goat. The taxes on farms is very small. Force the owners to sell to developers and build large housing areas and the tax revenue would be in the millions. Those counties now can.
Heh,Heh!
"Impeach and remove judges who do not follow the Constitution"
Yes, this would work.
To do it requires having the same majority in the US Senate as would be required to amend the Constitution.
The US House of Representatives has to vote to impeach, and then 67 Senators have to vote to convict.
Right now, with 55 Senators, the US Republicans cannot achieve the 60 votes necessary to obtain cloture so that the US President can seat any of his higher judicial nominees or his ambassadorial appointments.
Will all 55 Republicans, and 12 Democrats, be found to remove any Supreme Court justice who does not commit a crime?
No?
This method of ending judicial supremacy cannot possibly work in America.
Something simpler is required. US President Abraham Lincoln provided the only precedent that has ever been effective to overrule unwise decisions of the judiciary.
The advantage of US Presidential nullification is that then that impossible burden of finding the votes to impeach is shifted from the justices to the President. It is almost impossible to remove anyone by impeachment. Trying to impeach the judges will fail.
But if the President overrules Supreme Court decisions by ordering the Executive Branch to not enforce them, the Supreme Court's power would be broken: they have no officers. And the only way to restore the Supreme Court's power would be to impeach and remove the President. And that is just as hard to do - probably harder - than removing any of those Supreme Court justices.
There are 45 Democrats in the US Senate. Will 22 Republicans be found in the US Senate to side with them to remove the President?
No?
Then the Presidential veto of a Supreme Court decision would stand.
Clearly the President would have to take care not to abuse this power, because he could be removed if he casually used the political veto he has over the court. But he does in fact have this power. Abraham Lincoln used it effectively. Nobody has since.
If there is no check exercised against the Supreme Court, it will remain supreme. It is impossible to amend the Constitution or to impeach and remove Supreme Court justices. The supermajorities required to do those things do not exist.
But that is the key: it takes a supermajority to impeach.
There is not the supermajority to remove a US President either. And therefore, the President, and only the President, can exercise a veto override of Supreme Court decisions, so long as he is very careful to choose the appropriate causes.
Protecting private homes would be a fine cause for the current US President to take up in vetoing this decision of the Supreme Court.
>>>Apparently. After the SC ruling the gov. can take your house, give it to me if I promise to improve it or rebuild bigger and better, generating more tax revenue.
Do you think this ruling just null and voided my mortgage? If I don't own my home and land, why am I paying for it?
What's really ironic about this situation is that the GOP-dominated development industry is pitted against the GOP champions of home ownership via the "evil deeds" of activist liberal judges. I suppose we'll see what America values more: property rights or the bottom dollar. Should be a fun ride. I would say "pick a side" but what the hell does it matter anyway?...
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.