Posted on 04/26/2006 6:13:11 PM PDT by HoosierHawk
WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 3, today that Arkansas state officials were wrong to take away the home of a Little Rock man for nonpayment of real estate taxes.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well, was the guy hiding from the taxman, or was he somewhere else in a normal and proper way?
He was living elsewhere.
"There is no reason to suppose that the state will ever be less than fully zealous in its efforts to secure the tax revenue it needs," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The same cannot be said for the state's efforts to ensure that its citizens receive property notice before the state takes action against them."
Heh.
I like the decision, even though Roberts recruited only the Court libs to his position and my usual pals disagree.
Interesting lineup on vote...
Joining Roberts: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Dissenters: Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy. (Alito arrived after the case was argued.)
Well, if he was not hiding under assumed identity, then finding him ought not have been a problem. Couldn't the state request a copy of hius federal tax return and find it from there? They knew his SS#, right?
hius=his. Adjacent keys.
Gonna' make Los Angeles look like Rochester, Fur Shur!
Great Roberts quote.
I too thought the libs would side with the state.
"There is no reason to suppose that the state will ever be less than fully zealous in its efforts to secure the tax revenue it needs," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "The same cannot be said for the state's efforts to ensure that its citizens receive property notice before the state takes action against them."
I like it. ;-)
So, does Robert E. Lee get his property back (Arlington Cemetary?)
As soon as I saw "Souter," I figured it was an attempt to counteract the bad political consequences (i.e. the New Hampshire "we're-gonna-take-your-house,-David" movement) of the recent eminent domain vote.
Any decision that makes it more difficult for the government to screw us is a step in the right direction.
Amen.
The libs would apparantly be tired of the death threats that came out of Kelo.
No, Robert E. Lee doesn't because his forfeiture occurred pursuant to charges of treason. On the other hand, the constitution says there is no attainture of blood, so his son got the property back when Robert died, and the US Government paid him for the property.
Agreed!
"Like the first letter, the second was also returned to the Commissioner marked “unclaimed.” Ibid. Flowers purchased the house, which the parties stipulated in the trial court had a fair market value of $80,000, for $21,042.15. Record 224. Immediately after the 30-day period for postsale redemption passed, see §26–37–202(e), Flowers had an unlawful detainer notice delivered to the property. The notice was served on Jones’ daughter, who contacted Jones and notified him of the tax sale. Id., at 11 (Exh. B).
Jones"
LOL!
She refused to tell Mr. Jones of the certified letters from the tax department, but when the eviction notice came she sure saw to it that he was informed!
This ruling makes no sense though. Due process was undeniably served- if the Supreme Court thinks other states' procedures are better than Arkansas' then they should seek the repeal of the Tenth Amendment- by the Constitutional methods, not fiat.
I beg your pardon?
The US government then purchased the property from the son.
This is common knowledge.
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.