High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[pganini]

"There probably won't be an ammendment. Ammendments take many years to work their way throught he process. Each of the individual states, and local governments has the ability to prevent this as well.
Besides, the constitution, as written, already prohibits this. In any event there will be a change in the SCOTUS in the near future that will right this."

This has become the law of the land already. It's up to the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and if they say that this is LEGAL, then this applies to all lower jurisdictions. I guess the only remedy is that they didn't use the 10th amendment in this case and it's possible that some state can impose their own laws, but don't be surprised if the case go up to the Supreme court again and get the same ruling (and now it'd involve the 10th amendment).

[Natural Law]

Your understanding of the role of the SCOTUS is flawed, but understandably so. Our federal system has its complexities and nuances. The SCOTUS only affirmed that a local law was constitutional, but it does not require it become law everywhere. It affirmed that the Connecticut law was constitutional, but does not require that the Utah law prohibiting this be scrapped. Should the voters of Connecticut choose to either directly change this law or elect representatives who change it the SCOTUS will not have power to act.

[pganini]

Actually -- isn't Roe. V. Wade ruling affecting ALL laws everywhere? I mean you don't see local laws trying to circumvent that successfully. Or is it written differently?

[Natural Law]

This is one of those nuances. Because they are both 5-4 decisions, one cannot assume them to be an absolute truth. The 10th Amendment states;

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Roe v. Wade (wrongly) found abortion to be an enumerated right per the 4th Amendment. Kelo v. City of New London found (wrongly) that "private property be taken for public use" per the 5th Amendment that the definition of public use included private activities that increased public revenues. It did not mandate the further seizure of private property or invalidate local and state laws prohibiting their particular interpretation nor the removal of law makers committed to utilizing this new power.

I have faith that changes to the SCOTUS in the next 5 years will rectify both of these.

[pganini]

My point is, like Roe V. Wade, the recent SCOTUS decision IS the law of the land right now and any local laws trying to supersede that will get challenged and will probably get struck down until SCOTUS changes.

So, it means that at the moment, it's legal for developers to do this.

However, if ther eis a vote to change the constitution for this purpose, it'll probably pass with flying colors as both side of the aisle realized that the decision is pissing off people from both sides. I know it'd be a lengthy process, but it'll pass.

[longtermmemmory]

The really sick part is that even IF a state has and passes private to private eminent domain takings, a connected to local officials WILL go to a desired property owner and make threats.

The developer will just go up and say either you sell or we will take and force you to sell. You might win in the end but do you have the money to pay for lawyers? You will not be able to sell to anyone else but to me because your title will be clouded.

It will be litigation intimidation.

(s)Forget lawyers in government, its the REAL ESTATE AGENTS that we have to fear.(/s)

[Old_Mil]

How about Sealand?

Works well if you want to live here...



Yep, that's it. All of it.