High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

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

[dmanLA]

We are now officially a socialist country.

Our property rights now are the same as someone living in China!!!!

[myself6]

That wasnt just a little bit more. That was just about the entire enchilada. Without private ownership of property there is no freedom there is no liberty. We are now serfs living on the land of our lords and at their whim evicted.

To OWN property means that no one can legally take it from you unless you are a willing participant in the transaction.


What we have now is a renters society. Through your property taxes you RENT your land from the government. They can tell you what you can or cant do with it. They can now take it away for ANY reason. This will be used kinda like the interstate commerce thing.


To those of you asking the question...

In my judgment...

It is just about time, if the SC doesn't reverse itself on this... It WILL be time.

[fso301]

It's in the Constitution. Government can take your property as long as it provides compensation. Property does not only include real estate. Patents, copyrights and trademarks may also be taken via eminent domain.

[Gaffer]

It would not surprise me to learn that in the near future some County Commissioner or property developer involved in such a seizure will fall victim to a sniping by a landowner. This will happen and it will happen more frequently, I'm afraid.

I'm also surprised to find myself of the opinion that if I were a jury on such a landowner's trial, I'd "OJ" the case and let them walk.

[processing please hold]

Is it time YET???

Please ping me when a plan has been set in motion.

[TheForceOfOne]

Every liberal politician in your area will be frothing at the mouth to remove that religion eye sore from there sight. Religious institutions will be the first to feel the wrath of this travesty of American justice.

Any politician who allows this to happen in the area they represent should get the full publics outrage and demand for his/his resignation and not cease until they have done so!

[SittinYonder]

man just has to move out of the cities into the country if they want the possibility of keeping their land for their families

Explain to me why you believe the "country" is safe? I live in a rural area and I don't trust my local governments any more than I would if I lived in a metro area. In fact, I would guess that this will be used more often in rural-but-growing areas.

[hellinahandcart]

My husband posted that, not realizing he was logged in under my name. If you want him to clarify, I'm sure he'll get back to you.

Anyway. Most of us got the meaning, even if you didn't.

But then, you were the one who saw justifiable outrage and labeled it "panic". If I recall correctly, you did the SAME THING when the outrageous decision was Campaign Finance Reform.

I kinda wonder sometimes why you're here.

[planekT]

...I wonder if they are "immune" from all out Rebellion...

I am just as po'd as you are.

[american spirit]

I agree with your assertion about "legal" entities that are administrative as well as artificial in nature which is key because when they try to assume jurisdiction over a natural person, I believe it's done by contract. Here's why....everything in writing we receive from a gov't entity....city, state, etc. is an "offer of contract"....which can even be a letter saying your grass is too tall, etc. These letters/notices become a contract in three days unless the document is returned for "discharge and closure" of the matter and it has to be done "with honor"......if not, then there is a conflict created that can be acted upon by a city offical or attorney. As with all gov't. actions anymore it's very devious way to create a conflict that can facilitate gaining jurisdiction.....all cloaked in legalese and procedure we've never been privy to learning.

[djf]

Even though a seizure may now be "legal", there are still civil court action ramifications.

[Wolfie]

Plenty of people will say this is fine, just as plenty of people (Freepers, no less) say this (Woman stopped at Logan with $46,950 sues DEA) is fine. Anybody standing against it will be in the fringe, and treated accordingly.

[TheForceOfOne]

Sorry, I'm very angry right now, the ones who voted for it are the ones I am after. I can't believe this!

[AntiGuv]

You are correct, and Thomas Jefferson agreed with you:

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." -- Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" -- Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787.

"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787.

[djf]

Yup. The common law recognizes "notice and demand". I think a big part of it now is UCC, which basically says if you don't reply and contest something in ten days, they win by default.

[ClancyJ]

Hm...I was afraid of that but it will not be worse than the cities I'm sure.

Time to ban together and contact our legislators and find a way to turn this over. The supreme court is quickly stepping over their boundaries.

And remember, once something is designated "public property", the government determines how it is used, what can be done with it and can prevent any religion use.

[Gaffer]

True enough. Although, most government officials involved in land issues have the benefit of government paid attorneys, and developers have the cash to front lawyers' fees. The poor homeowners in most cases only have enough to meet their immediate needs, let alone finance a lawsuit.

[SoFloFreeper]

Clarence Thomas' dissent says:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "(T)hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."'

What is THIS if not Communism/Socialism/Totalitarianism????

[zerosix]

Time to begin Impeachment Proceedings against 4 Supremes eliminating the 5th Amendment by the stroke of a pen!

[grizzly84]

The flaming liberal professor Jonathan Turley is even strongly against it, he's talking on CNN right now.