High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

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

[JTHomes]

I like the dirty politics angle to pressure the local politicians. However, a good old-fashioned armed rebellion would really get some attention. While I would never advocate it, imagine the coverage generated by 5000 armed patriots showing up on demolition day. Many here often correctly identify the intent of 2nd Amendment, but other than on the individual level we never get a chance to demonstrate its power.

[AD from SpringBay]

There is no more dangerous tyrant than the politician with dollar signs in his eyes who is in possession of a piece of paper signed by his crony lawyers and fellow beaurocrats. This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written into the constitution.

[Eva]

I'll take (d) the Supreme Court reversing itself.

I think that we should start a full out campaign to force this issue, immediately. It would be very timely for the coming court nomination battle.

[processing please hold]

DUmmies are pissed off as well, and incredulous as to the liberal judges who did this. I propose that we have a Get Together, between Freepers and DUers, at the house of the original plaintiff, on the day his home is to be bulldozed. Get a big party together, and we can unite on this one topic, have some beers, tell some jokes..

We're all Americans.

[redgolum]

Remember the Patriot Act.

Big Brother is watching, and FReepers have already been questioned about things posted here. Don't talk like that to much.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

"Buying homes in established residential areas carry zero risk"

Tell that to the homeowners that used to live in Poletown. The entire neighborhood was leveled.

[unseen]

The tree of liberty is certainly thirsty, isn't it?


Yes it is. I think it needs watering.

[RightWhale]

The 1787

Constitutional Convention was brought because the Union itself was about to collapse and the various states ally themselves with foreign powers. This isn't happening now, and the structural problems that brought about the Secession and subsequent war don't exist now. It is hard to see how a rebellion will get anywhere in this case that the economic impact will be in favor of the people. For Justice to a few citizens alone? When did that ever justify a rebellion?

[Stopislamnow]

Million Mom March
Million Man March

A Million Gun March sure would soil some senatewhores and congresscum panties wouldn't it?

[jw777]

so there is no right to private ownership, but we should allow the flag to be burned for fear of abridging free speach?

silly libs. they are sofa king retarded.

[jwalsh07]

I live in CT. In fact I just spoke with my Congressmans Chief of Staff asking what Congressman Simmons plans to do about an out of control SCOTUS codifying theft. Reply "I don't know the Congressmans position, I'll have to get back to you."

My reply, "The justices should be impeached, that's my message and I'd like the courtesy of an answer to my question."

He's called me before on tough issues, I'll give him that.

[Robert_Paulson2]

He won't.

[RightWhale]

Yes, local gov't was preserved in our present Federal system for the reason that they would be closer to the people. Get close to your local gov't.

[mbraynard]

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.

No. Absolutly not. You completely mis-read the ruling. It said that it is not unconstitutional for a muni to use immenent domain. It does not say that a city has a constitutional right to use immenent domain in this way.

[jwalsh07]

Ther will be no rebellion but this is an issue that's gonna snowball. Stealing from the poor to line the pockets of politicians and robber barons? This is the perfect issue to smack down the SCOTUS liberal activist wing.

[coloradan]

According to the Fifth Amendment, takings must be (1) justly compensated, and (2) for public use. A Pfizer factory is not a public use. What do property rights even mean, if someone can convince the local city council that they could provide more tax revenue from their use of my land - or your land - than I or you can, and therefore, the government can and should seize it and sell it to that person? If every parcel of land is up for the highest bidder, what do property rights, as described in the Constitution, even mean?

[xzins]

Sorry, P-M, but we thoroughly disagree.

You have just outlined the principle of wealth. If you can find a wealthy private investor to put in something on my land that brings in more money than what I'm doing with it, then you can take my land.

That means that only the wealthiest own anything.

Ahab & Jezebel just lived in the wrong age. By this ruling he could have simply taken that vineyard he coveted. After all, he was richer.

[Haru Hara Haruko]

When the armed men wearing flag patches on their shoulders show up to take your house, will you still want to save the flag from being burned?

[pleasedontzotme]

Presidents far before Bush 41/Reagan have found that appointing justices is a very tricky business...they seem to be unpredictable.

(Actually, I think it's a question of looking at the politics rather than looking at the particular merits of the case in front of you. But that's another discussion.)

[Robert_Paulson2]

I will have to read this opinion from the court web site. It violates just about everything this country was founded on. If the Republicans don't grow a pair over this and rearrange the courts, then they are as bad as the dems.

---

guess what?
WE are as bad as the dems.