Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
Yeah, that textile industry sure is booming...off in Vietnam. Seriously, I realize that there are Toyota plants in Mississippi and the like, but I believe that the forested land on a highway out on "that" side of town is definitely owned by SOMEONE.
Okay ... I am losing it! I wrote you a very long rambling reply but some how I lost it. Let me just say we are probably all better off as it ended with .......... but I digress. LOL
In answer to your question ... who could possibly know after today. Yesterday I would have said, "of course not"
Absolutely they are unconstitutional. They are expanding on unconstitutional precedent which has been my argument here for many years. From first trimester to killling them on the way out, they never contract they expand. Enough is enough my friend. Fort Trumbull is not a "blighted" area nor is New London. It is middle class for cripes sake and even if it wasn't the 5th gives government no power play Robin Hood, Prince John or Attilla the Hun.
There is an Airbus plant coming to the US. Radical.
Like I said, You are one confused dude.
Yes, owned by someone who wants to sell that land; the "For sale: 100 Acres. Phone Number: ***-****" signs are evidense that they want to sale.
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.
This is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. It's so bad, I had to put it in color and quote it in full, to capture all of its majestic badness.
The growing executive power is one of the worst problems of current American constitutionalism, and your suggestion throws gasoline on the fire. Your suggestion is basically that the President break the law, and get away with it.
The President's party owes the fact that it has been vouchsafed the public confidence to the extent that it now controls the Executive Branch and both Houses of Congress, to its promises to the People to keep the law and the Constitution and roll back the cynical excesses and green-eyed power-hunger of the other party -- which party you now advise us to emulate.
Your suggestion is too cute by half. Adopting it would scandalize the people and cause them to turn away from the GOP, possibly for generations. I know my parents' generation never forgave nor forgot Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, and that episode was one of the reasons the People nearly elected a Republican in 1948 and did elect one in 1952 in a walkover. Even afterward, the court-packing episode became part of a legacy of political arrogance that helped people to pull a lever for Richard Milhous Nixon in 1968, ending the Democrats' long run of tenure in the White House and opening the door to a new period of American history, a period of Republican reinvigoration and ascendancy in the Executive.
Bump.
This ain't ending anytime soon.
Well, what if just compensation isn't paid and the vulchers don't give a good crap about your inconvenience?
As a policy matter, this stuff doesn't bother me at all, if there is really is a public good involved as opposed to a phony influence peddling thingie.
It should. The taking of private property, the homes of American citizens, at the behest of those with bigger bank accounts for the sole purpose of building bigger homes for American citizens with larger pockets should bother us all.
Has anybody heard about the privately owned-maintained uber-giant Trans-Texas Corridor that ol' guv Rick Perry (a Repub!) is cramming down our throats? That's right -- 1/4 mile wide swath across Texas, 10 lanes (6 car, 4 truck), 4 rail lines & pipelines galore. I'm sure this court decision will be received well by all.
Where you gonna go? The U.N. owns it, where ever that is. Our dip stick leaders will be sure of that, or if not, then China will own it all.
I hear you. I understand the desire. Me too.
Bingo! Thoughts along these lines are what bounced around in my head all afternoon.
We defeated communism only to become communists.
"Stripping a motivated people of their dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea."
John Ross, Unintended Consequences
The Great Wal-Mart of China is just gonna love this!
I would build a space ark, and go far away as possible..
I want to see the Preseident come out fast and hard against this decision, and stand up for property owners rights on this issue. On this he must take a stand."
He must take a stand on illegal immigration and he has, he's all for it.
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.