High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

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

[lentulusgracchus]

I guess they should call it the Enemy Domain law instead of Eminent Domain since we are clearly in the way with our stupid houses.

Needs-to-be-said-again-with-emphasis bump.

Business interests will go wild with this. They'll take whole neighborhoods and bulldoze them for overbuilding, with the right kind of money spread around the Downtown Crowd.

The biggest developers in America could have bought this decision with thirty shekels of silver, it is so custom-made for their interest. But they probably didn't even have to kick a buck -- this is liberalism come to its inevitable, rotten conclusion:

"Property rights? What property rights? Oh -- those property rights. Well, we don't like them.... Case dismissed."

[patriot_wes]

Sure it's from the 10 planks of the communist manifesto

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/com-man.html

[KevinDavis]

No not yet...

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks for posting this. It should be posted early and often.

[lentulusgracchus]

....Walmart's and buy some moo-moo's.

That's "muumuus".

[RightWhale]

This decision, BTW, brings the true state of private property into the public eye and ought to be viewed as an awakening that should aid the movement to withdraw from the Treaty and establish property rights in outer space.

12 is a movement, isn't it? Last year it was only six.

[patriot_wes]

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/com-man.html

[jwalsh07]

So, does this ugly monster called Eminent Domain now go to Congress for debate and or veto by the president?

Nope, the President has no veto power over the courts and Congress can not limit the jurisdiction of the court ex post facto. Constitutional amendment or impeachement is the only viable alternative. Chances? Slim and none.

[CindyDawg]

Well, what I meant was have they ever tried to force someone off their property? The ones I see going up are on vacant land that was for sell. If I owned a business like this I would probably have "buyers" too. In a fair way of course.

[BlackbirdSST]

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

Yes it does. In fact several exist. Congress can make Law, every single time the black robes pull this crap, not to mention Impeachment. There is the Amendment process, not saying it will work. Lastly, Constitutional Convention. I wouldn't necessarily trust our current goobers to go that route and would likely fight tooth and nail if they decided to. The point being, the Constitution has built in powers of protection. Blackbird.

[KevinDavis]

Yes it is.. You are right it should bring greater attention to private property rights in general here and in space...

[BlackbirdSST]

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

Yes it does. In fact several exist. Congress can make Law, every single time the black robes pull this crap, not to mention Impeachment. There is the Amendment process, not saying it will work. Lastly, Constitutional Convention. I wouldn't necessarily trust our current goobers to go that route and would likely fight tooth and nail if they decided to. The point being, the Constitution has built in powers of protection. Blackbird.

[lentulusgracchus]

I own property that this ruling was made for.

Me, too. I live here. I'm in their way.

They'll take whole neighborhoods with the wave of a wand with this one.

[JBev]

I do not see this as liberalism except if one interprets it solely as love of big government. Yes, I know, the liberal parts of the court voted for it while the conservative portion dissented. However, this does not define liberalism or conservatism anymore than does conservative republicanism means big business interests. If that were the case, then the situation would be reversed (the liberal portion dissenting).

[redgolum]

Needs to be repeated. Look at the 10 planks of the Communists.

[TheForceOfOne]

Please do, I felt the same way and even though I may be kidding around a little this really upsets me. I hope this creates such a national outrage on all sides that it forces Congress, the president, and all of us to reverse the ruling.

It may change the landscape of the SCOTUS and the use of the nuclear option should go beyond a threat if obstruction takes place. McCain will not be able to pull another stunt like that again.

[Frank_2001]

I don't think you're overreacting, the recently deceased Fifth Amendment read ".....nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

(The homeowners had absolutely no desire to sell at any price)

Another out-of-control judicial horror!!

[Craven Moorhead]

Wal-Mart often strong-arms the local gov't to force ED provisions on property it wants...

Example:
an Asian market in Denver, CO was threatened with ED if it DIDN'T sell out to WM so it could build a "badly needed" Supercenter. It's as much City of Denver's fault as anyone's though. WM defined the lots it wanted and sent Denver to do the dirty work.

[TheForceOfOne]

while waiting for your monthly check... lol

I like your humor, now you're one step ahead of me!

moo-moo's. lol

[Torie]

You sue if you think you are underpaid. Financial losses to a business can be taken into account.