High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

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

[Brian Allen]

<< Justice Thomas for Chief Justice! >>

Please, Dear Lord!?!

[SittinYonder]

Did you read comment #164, #102, etc? If not, please read it to understand the proper context of the comment.

I did not read #164 or #102, or if I had did not put your post in the context of those two. I thought you were blaming Bush for the SCOTUS ruling. Sorry.

The rest of what you said is echoed throughout my posting history. We're on the same page.

[blazematrix]

Which comes to mind,

From: "The Story of John Titor",

" Have you see the documentary on Waco? You can drive to a video store and rent it. It’s called “Waco – Rules of Engagement.” Just for argument’s sake, what do you think would happen if information were discovered that confirmed the worst accusations made against the law enforcement officers there? Would you hope….nothing?

((P.S. The idea of a farmer general leaving his fields to lead his country's troops to victory is an old one going back, at least, to Roman times. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus, I believe, was the gentleman's name, from the 5th Century B.C. Roman Republic.))

Yes, I often think about that when I see pictures of "my" farmer general in Omaha. It’s a large bronze depiction holding a shotgun in one hand a copy of the Constitution in the other. He is looking up at the sky in defiance of God after his father was killed. (At least his name isn’t Sparticus or William). "



So, this is how the war starts between cities and those outside the cities. Take the land so people in the cities can have food when the farmers go on strike. I know of many who decided to turn the wheat to hay. Due to the low price.

Or,, for what ever reason they can think of. Now we become the enemy.


Another quote,

"When they use the word “enemy”, they’re talking about YOU! You don’t really think the Marines are going to jump out of helicopters overseas with sticky goop, pepper spray and seizure lights, do you?"

It is a sad day in the U.S.
BM

[RightWhale]

That is implicit in that it does not describe the origin of property. The right of bequest is the basis, and that is a right created and enforced by the State against the clan.

[AntiGuv]

It was a 5-4 ruling from the liberal wing of the Court.

[shellshocked]

BUMP!!!

[Necrovore]

That is the only means we have left.

[myself6]

Not yet, but its getting damn close.

[Political Junkie Too]

Does this mean that all the expensive single-home properties on Martha's Vineyard, Cape Cod, and the California coastline should be taken and converted into mult-unit resorts that increase the revenues for the local governments, or is it only the bedroom communities that will be bulldozed over for a golf resort or two?

-PJ

[SoCal Pubbie]

The original poster implied international law colored this decision, and you answered that France had better protection of personal property. So I asked the question, are there no other countries but France and the U.S. Now you expand the world to include Europe, leaving out the balance of the Americas, Asia, and Africa. Of course neither French law nor U.S. laws are International Law. Things such as the UN's Universal Declaration of human rights might trump any national protections if it were to be allowed to do so.

As for your criticisms of the U.S. Constitution, there is nothing wrong with the document. There is this thing usually called the separation or balance of powers. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of all things as you claim. The rulings of the court can be overturned by Constitutional amendment. The power you write of is being ceded to the courts, it is not given to them by the Constitution.

The lack of resolve to do so is the true source of political outrage you mentioned, by and large. One would expect wrong rulings to be made, or corrupt decisions passed. Such is the nature of imperfect beings who create any government. The problem today is the abandonment of the original understanding of liberty that drives current tax codes, legislation, and jurisprudence. That is the source of our woes, not the Constitution, which if strictly observed would provide the safe harbor we seek as free thinking individuals.

[Rodney King]

I'm not sure that there is much to criticize in this ruling. I believe it was unanymous.

Nope, it was 5-4.

Nothing in the constitution prevents a state or municipality for using imminent domain unless it violates one of the first ten amendments (IE - a state decides to demolish all Christian Churches).

Please read the 5th amendment. What is wrong with you?

[blue-duncan]

Back in the late 60' and 70's it was called re-development and it saved the downtowns of many aging cities. Now it is another re-shuffling of the property uses. If you want to hear some screaming just wait until they increase your taxes so the state or municipality can take productive farm land for open space or preservation that only the Audobon Society will use.

Of course, if you were conspiratorily minded or addicted to the "Left Behind" series you could make out a scheme to soften up the populace for the taking of church property for the common good, thus putting mega-churches out of business. There goes the coffee bars, the MacDonalds, the book stores and the large choirs. All that's left is small group Bible studies. By the way, we are starting another six week study Sunday evening at my house if anyone is interested (Adv.).

[american spirit]

Good info and something tocheck on....only a state legislature is empowered to pass laws....a city council can only pass rules, ordinances, codes, etc. for their Muni corporation. Those are not (positive) laws and are unenforceable....it's the same as someone like IBM sending you a letter saying that you have to follow their dress code or rules of conduct. That city corporation has no authority over your affairs.

[from occupied ga]

The we should accept any law because "the power of life and death resides in the state?"

Kristallnacht is now legal in the USA First property and then life

[P-Marlowe]

Your position on this goes well beyond even what the Supreme Court majority said today. "Promote the General Welfare" is listed in Article I, not Amendment V.....
You might want to consider reading the opinions.

First of all "Promote the General Welfare" is not in Article I, it is in the Preamble.

Secondly, if you want to get down to original intent in regard to the Bill of Rights, then the fifth amendement does not nor was it ever intended to apply to the states or local goverments. The Bill of Rights was intended as a reservation of rights for the citizens of the various states against the Federal Government and not from their own states.

[oblomov]

In an earlier day, before people were numbed by the comforts of suburbia and the pleasures of reality television, this sort of thing would start a revolt. The British tax on tea was a pittance compared with what we pay today to government at all levels. And for what? Our property is not protected; on the contrary, it is taken from us at the will of the rulers.

[blueriver]

This is the right fight but the wrong battlefield. A state legislature can pass a law preventing this, as can a city council. A state constitution may also be amended to prevent this.

If a state legislature writes a law prohibiting this a person can sue that it is unconstituional and the law can easily be maid null and void by the men that were black robes.

[Vicomte13]

I wrote: "Who can take property is not a local issue."

You responded: "It absolutely is if the use of the land is local. If it were, say, railroads stretching from coast to coast it would be a national issue."

This is one of those cases where federalism will result in a result so perverse that most advocates of federalism would balk at carrying it this far.

Unlimited local power to condemn property and take it, so long as just compensation is paid, is now the law of the land in the United States. This is likely to become odious to people across the land within a few years' time, and there will be a push to federalize the issue to stop the parade of abuses which are as certain to follow as night follows day.

If you do not have the principle that private land can only be taken for direct government use, but rather have the principle that organized local powers can take land and resell it for profit, with "just compensation" to be decided by themselves, then you will have abuse after abuse.

And since that is now the law, you will have abuse after abuse after abuse. Structurally, the problem is that there is no national limit on what a "public use" is.

[Syncro]

Everyone could appeal their property tax assessments now and claim their property is worthless because the state could take it at any time for any reason.

Good idea. Fly? Hmmmmm, probably not.