High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

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

[Constitution Day]

WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE!?!?

Totally f'ing unacceptable.

[dep]

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 pretty well has to, if he dares ever again speak the words "ownership society."

[mysterio]

Yes, the outcome would have been very different.

[safisoft]

Take your anti-Bush rhetoric somewhere else. Bush is NOT a RINO. That is so far off the subject matter as to be idiotic.

Act like a RINO, you are a RINO. Bush term 2 = RINO.

[Idisarthur]

I have never been into StarWars.

I've never seen more than a minute of any episode.

Although I'd like to convert it never seems to happen, any suggestions?

[texasbluebell]

Today is a black day in America, private property rights have been struck down.

A black black black day.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

If that's the case, then they should pay the fair market value for that property. Right now, govts. condemn the property and then buy it from you at pennies on the dollar. You either have to accept or have the cops seize it and throw you off of it (and probably into jail).

Welcome to the former USSR/Nazi Germany, where the govt. can just snap their fingers, take away your personal property, and pay you next to nothing. Very nice.

[BikerNYC]

Well, that sucks. Especially when it comes to an issue like this, with one part of the government telling other parts of the government that they can take people's houses, uproot them, all for the sake of some strip mall that may bring in more tax dollars.

This is truly one of those situations where the old saying applies:

In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[RightWhale]

Still think they didn't mean exactly what they said?

They said a lot of things. One thing: the commercial class was under-represented in Congress in favor of the landed class. Another thing was the evil of paper money. Lots of things, including that the Union was about dead in 1787.

[junta]

I agree, and let me bet that Kudlow never mentions this or for that matter any other DC whore who preaches economic growth. This issue might never pass the lips of Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly because they are at heart plutocrats insulated from "takings" by their residence in gated communities. I guess I should go put on my feedbag now and shut up.

[Fury]

I'm very interested to read the opinion. It's not yet available...

[adam_az]

"Some state constitutions might already ban it."

The Arizona state constitution specifically mentions this kind of crap.

[tomahawk]

I believe that China now has more respect for private property than this country.

The descent into rot continues.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Sons of bitches. If they want to take my house, they'll have to kill me for it.

[MamaTexan]

Property rights come through the State through the legal system.

No, property rights come from our God given right to KEEP what we EARN!

It's why life liberty and property are NOT in the Constitution, which is a POSITIVE law contract, but in the Declaration of Independence!

___________________________________________________________________________

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations:

First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit;

second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use;

and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892) _________________________________________________________________

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

________________________________________________________

Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791

________________________________________________________

[RightWhale]

Show the statement that supports your claim that property rights are explicitly granted by the Constitution.

[Uncle Vlad]

I think you're right. We went to war against England over things such as this.

[Publius Valerius]

it appears that the definition of "public use" in the 5th Amendment has shifted from the direct use of the public at large ("...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") to a more derivative "public good" derived from "more taxes collected are more 'public good' created". But let's see what the opinion actually says, and maybe there is a further legal basis for this appalling decision.

That's exactly what the Court held in the 60s in a case in Michigan when a city took some blighted land for redevelopment. In my opinion, I think the fellow that argued the case for the landowners really dropped the ball. He argued that the tax benefits to the city were speculative, therefore it wasn't a public use. I think he should have argued, simply, that public use means a school or a courthouse or whatever. Attack the very heart of the issue, don't dance around it.

[CajunConservative]

I agree! I have been through this and it isn't fun. This is one area my lib dem sister is very conservative in her thinking. She's royally pissed off and wanting to start a campaign to change things.