We could start here :) I encourage everyone to copy this image and use it.
Posted on 06/24/2005 5:59:15 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Yes, a stadium is most certainly regarded as a "public venue" and neither O'Connor nor Thomas disputed this in their dissents. They clearly and explicitly agreed with it.
"Has Bush said anything yet? Has anyone in Congress?"
No, and neither has the MSM. They seem to be ignoring it.
Why do you the the Flag Desecration Distraction is being pushed now?
"So implying that someone who has worked and slaved for a home is just forced to hand it over wihtout compensation is untrue."
NOT TRUE. Rare is it that a person gets what they put in, both in dollars and sweat.
I apologize. You're right. I did confuse posts. Mea culpa.
I truly think that we will have to have some sort of revolution to change things because they have gone too far. The government thinks they ARE the United States and the people are just pawns in their plans rather than the people being the US.
NAAAHHHH. Roe v Wade gave me the right to decide what to do with my body.
OH, wait a minute, I'm a guy......never mind.
We could start here :) I encourage everyone to copy this image and use it.
Our cases have generally identified three categories of takings that comply with the public use requirement, though it is in the nature of things that the boundaries between these categories are not always firm. Two are relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. First, the sovereign may transfer private property to public ownership--such as for a road, a hospital, or a military base. See, e.g., Old Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 269 U. S. 55 (1925); Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U. S. 700 (1923). Second, the sovereign may transfer private property to private parties, often common carriers, who make the property available for the public's use--such as with a railroad, a public utility, or a stadium. See, e.g., National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407 (1992); Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U. S. 30 (1916).
Underscore added by me.
From Justice Thomas' dissent:
The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the property, as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever.
****
Though use of the eminent domain power was sparse at the time of the founding, many States did have so-called Mill Acts, which authorized the owners of grist mills operated by water power to flood upstream lands with the payment of compensation to the upstream landowner. See, e.g., id., §178, at 245-246; Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 9, 16-19, and n. (1885). Those early grist mills "were regulated by law and compelled to serve the public for a stipulated toll and in regular order," and therefore were actually used by the public. Lewis §178, at 246, and n. 3; see also Head, supra, at 18-19. They were common carriers--quasi-public entities.
A stadium clearly falls into these categories; O'Connor (joined by Rehnquist and Scalia) specifies them by name.
I wish that were the ONLY idiotic thing he'd done, but how does this compare to his "no new taxes" tax increase, his ban on importing weapons, his... oh, you get my drift.
BTW, that would be the same cruel twist that led to Ronald Reagan appointing Anthony Kennedy.
He should have been suspicious at how easily his appointee was approved...
PS. O'Connor's ruling was joined in full by Thomas as well, although he also wrote separately.
That's a good statement, and I admire your coolness in a certainly inflammatory situation. However, the time for education has passed. Sure we need to educate the children, but what about the adults? This has gone so far as to have some calling for armed rebellion. I gotta tell you, I don't see much of a choice here if we want our property rights back. I even believe we should go so far as to not only demand that this ruling be over turned, but also an Amendment to the Constitution be added that prevents any government (state, local, county, municipal, federal) from directly taxing the property of individuals.
Go ahead and tell me to dream on if you want, but this is going to have to happen sooner or later or the bloodshed within the shores of America will be great. It will be brother against brother again. It might not happen in our lives, but our sons, daughters, and grandchildren will be left with the burden.
Correct. This Supreme Court seems to think it is the Supreme Soviet.
"Has Bush said anything yet? Has anyone in Congress?"
Perhaps there was a nod and a wink accross the table as some elected office holders dined with sc justices.........
Somehow, I expect that.
Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium in New York City are clearly "public venues," since the City of New York is the legal owner of both facilities. A different situation could occur (and does occur more frequently these days, as these venues get more expensive to build) in other places. If a corporate entity such as the Ballpark at Arlington is listed on the property title as the owner then the stadium is no more a "public venue" than the Wal-Mart across the street.
A quiet desperation has set in and now, it is time for someone not in government to lead. I live about 1300 miles from Washington, but I would be willing to march on Washington if we could get millions. The problem with that is that it would receed from memory too quickly.
CORRECT! THis is also not to mention that the stealing of the property is against their will. I guess that doesn't mean so much.
I said it was well-established and uncontroversial as a point of law. It has been thus since the founding. You may feel free to disagree, but President Bush is on perfectly firm ground to speak out on this ruling notwithstanding the perfectly well-established and uncontroversial exercise of eminent domain that he's been associated with.
Was there property there that they had to confiscate? I don't recall any homes or small businesses around there, only lots and lots of parking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.