High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.

[NeoCaveman]

Just reading over the decision, it seems as if the court was unwilling to trump the state precedent for ED already in place. Isn't that the good people of CT's fault for having such a provision in place?

In a pre 14th Ammendment America that would be true. But since the 14th makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states too they should have to respect the 5th Ammendment and it's "public use" takings clause.

I take just a little comfort in the thought that most of the abuse will be in blue states like Connecticut.

[TheForceOfOne]

So, are we heading into the new age of the "Robber Barons" and large private concentrations of economic power?

[Lancey Howard]

You can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there's a fire.

[Craven Moorhead]

Well, this isn't much of a representative democracy, is it? I believe the reps of CT have phones and e-mail access as well as we do.

[NeoCaveman]

You can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there's a fire.

Of course.

[Calpernia]

They ignore them. CT is in the same boat my state is in. We don't 'elect' officials, they are Selected (voter fraud) We don't get to vote on the laws or provisions. We are essentially POWs.

[Craven Moorhead]

That sucks! All they vote on here in red-state Texas is how long HS cheerleaders' skirts must be in order to prevent wood from occuring. There's legislature inaction!

[MamaTexan]

But it does not have a mechanism to protect itself against what the Supreme Court has done, does it?

No, not really. I don't imagine the Founders ever foresaw a day when all three of the separate but equal branches of government would conspire to strip Americans of their natural, inalienable rights.

What the Supreme Court says is the law of the land in America, and this is nowhere made clearer than when the Supreme Court of the US makes laws that more or less directly contradict the language of the Constitution document.

No. Any decision that is contrary to the Constitution or the principles for which it stands is automatically null and void upon it's inception.

I understand your anger, but what is the solution?

The Founders said their were three boxes in freedom, the ballot box, the jury box and the ammo box.

The first is chancy at best - finding someone worthy to elect is hard enough. Having them stick to their principles once elected is harder still.

The jury box at this point I believe is our best bet. Jurors have the right to judge the person AND the law, whether government likes it our not. That is how alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. People flatly refused to convict the patrons of the local speakeasy.

The ammo box, while a viable option, should certainly be used only as a last resort. We have a RIGHT to rebel against our government in order to keep it within it's Constitutional boundaries.

Personally, I will continue my study of law. The Founders based our country on the power of the individual, and I believe this power is available to everyone IF you have the knowledge to go about it properly.

Might I ask you a question? Are you an American?

Not that it makes a difference to me, I like accents :)

But you have an amazingly firm grasp of the Constitution and it's role in our history....one that Americans (with a few FReeper exceptions) usually lack.

[Just A Nobody]

Crazy days........Indeed!

[AntiGuv]

However contemptible in hindsight, in its era Plessy v Ferguson was deemed a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment. You see it as a usurpation, but it was quite the opposite. Moreover, the Supreme Court upheld the action of the legislatures in Plessy v Ferguson. It was Brown v Board of Education that overruled the legislatures.

You need to cut the circumlocutions and make up your mind. How do you propose that the Supreme Court would've been overruled in Plessy v Ferguson? The legislatures themselves obviously weren't going to do it: they passed the laws in the first place. How would the president do it? On what authority? Are you proposing that the president overthrow the legislatures by edict? That is fascism, and that is precisely where your formulation ends up. Moreover, the presidents did not disagree with Plessy v Ferguson until several decades later.

By the time Brown v Board of Education rolled around, the President was in full agreement with the Supreme Court's ruling. In fact, the recent presidents had nominated justices that would clearly shift the Court in that direction.

[Calpernia]

Keep TX red!

And pray for us blue state denizens.

[Craven Moorhead]

I'll pray for you, but personally, I lean left.
Hey, I live in Austin! It was bound to happen.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe this is probably one of the top five worst decisions ever made by the SCOTUS, possibly even number two or number one. Property rights are integral to what makes this nation a free society. Now your neighbors can team up against you with the city council and steal your property.

We've been inching towards this for many years. Railroads, then highways, then large renovation projects for cities and now this.

I believe that the government of the United States has been sent so many messages, by our acceptence of unconstitutionality, criminality and now the blatant taking of our property, that it thinks it can do anything.

You know what, I think they're right.

I've got my pet grieve, and you all know what it is. Why shouldn't they shaft us all the more? It's a freebee and they know it!

[mbraynard]

I think that you guys are sort of having mis-directed anger. I don't necessarily agree with the decision. In fact, the sole fact that Thomas dissented means that if I were on the court, I'd probably dissent too.

But you realize this sudden rage at the decision is comparable to anger at Smith and Wesson after the Columbine Massacre. ANY of the following REPRESENTATIVE bodies can put a stop to this tomorrow: state legislature, municipal council, or the National Legislature.

Emminent domain /fourth amendment is slippery like the commerce clause. But like the commerce clause, the actions that the court decides always start with over-reaching by an elected body. And ultimately, no document, particularly one several hundred years old, can withstand being undercut by generations of individuals - not just on the courts, but ultimately by VOTERS. So why is the anger at the SCOTUS and not at the muni who did this? Where is the fundraising to get the bums tossed out of office? Or the pressure to get the state legislature to reverse the decision and make this illegal?

[Churchjack]

From the galling decision:

'Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan. Petitioners are not hold-outs; they do not seek increased compensation, and none is opposed to new development in the area. Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the NLDC’s proposed use for their confiscated property is not a "public" one for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.'

[Gimme]

This is a totally horrible decision!! Used to be that the government would condemn your property but now they don't have to bother with that. What is this, an alternate Universe? I can see all kinds of pay offs to state officials to get a prime parcels of land and mow down homes all for the good of the state economy (in realty to make the fat cats purse fatter). This is totally corrupt.

[Lancey Howard]

The Supreme Court is calling for revolution in this country.

This latest dose of tyranny from the big-government-is-God, liberal activist wing of the US Supreme Court must be confronted head-on in the Senate. Tomorrow. It is time to get righteous and go nuclear. No more games with the judges. It's time to load up the judiciary with as many Janice Rogers Browns as we can find. Period.

Frist and the GOP better call for vote after vote after vote - - I don't care for what - - that gets every Senator on the record about exactly where they stand on this latest disgrace by those Supreme Court scumbags.

In the meantime, I strongly advise all Freepers to arm themselves to the teeth.

[jwalsh07]

Congress has several means to remedy rogue courts. They have Article 3 powers to limit the courts jurisdiction and they don't need a super majority to do it. They have the impeachment power. They have the power to amend the Constitution, see Dred Scott. And finally they have the power to add justices to the Supreme Court wihtout super majorities being required, check with FDR on that one. :-}

They have all the power they need, what they lack is the will. Of course there is always the chance that this case will be the wake up call that America, across the political spectrum, needs. We'll see but I am not optimistic.

[Calpernia]

Well, welcome to FR. Heads up to you, this is a conservative forum :) MeekOneGOP has a Texas ping list if you want to freepmail him and ask to be added to his Texas News Pings.

[Vicomte13]

"I take just a little comfort in the thought that most of the abuse will be in blue states like Connecticut."

You should not.

In places like Connecticut, there are very powerful homeowners' interests and a lot of pretty wealthy people who will probably be able to resist excesses.

But in the American South there is an enormous disparity in power between the great employers such as GM or Weyerhauser and the local workers of very modest means. There has always been a strong "boss" society there, and this decision will embolden very, very aggressive business interests to push a lot of people around who are not so likely to have the means to protect themselves as wealthy Connecticutans. Were the full truth known, the places in Connecticut where this is likely to happen, places like New London and Bridgeport, these powers will be used to drive the middle class out and make room on the beach for wealthy homeowners. That is precisely what is happening in the New London development.