Supreme Court:: Cities May Seize Your Home!

06/25/2005 01:23:32 PM · #51

I dont know if this has been posted elsewhere, but the entire opinion is here:

Entire Case Opinion (Slip)

They define "use for the public" by saying "this is not a case in which the City isplanning to open the condemned landâ��at least not in its entiretyâ��to use by the general public" but rather "public use as â��public purpose.â��" (raising taxes, employing citizens overrules your right to your home that you OWN).

From the dissent:
"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgradedâ��i.e., given to an owner whowill use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the publicâ��in the process."

"These two limitations (public use, just compensation) serve to protect â��the security of Property,â�� which Alexander Hamilton described to the Philadelphia Convention as one of the â��great obj[ects] of Government.â��"

"The trouble with economic development takings is that private benefit and incidental public benefit are, by definition, merged and mutually reinforcing."
What O'Connor argues, and I myself question, is that the majority says this doesn't allow private takings, but it does. The city transferred the land from the homeowners to the business because the business would help the economy more. By definition ALL business helps the economy more than a private home. This means, not essentially, but exactly, that the city can take ANY private home, transfer the land to ANY business, and give you compensation. End of story.

"States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty, but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution (and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them."
Jesus I love Sandra Day O'Connor sometimes.

"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,"
I don't understand how anyone can disagree with this reading. Government takings for public use are takings of the government for use by the public! Holy cow, we have to stretch meanings to figure out why the founders put a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that said this. Why would the founders not have said what they did elsewhere "general welfare?" General welfare is what they say when they mean what the majority decided they meant here.

My issue is that we are creeping and creeping towards all-powerful governments and everyone has decided that each issue is not worth the all-out fight it is going to take. What are we WAITING for, 1984? How, WHY do we let this all happen? Cuz it's easier? Governments hold ALL the power and nobody is willing to cut their knees out from under them in ANY way. We all abide by the system, even as they change the system under our noses. Nobody is really willing to put forth the effort.

As for this being a "big business" decision, it's not. It's really a decision for the power of the city government and the liberals are once again pushing us away from power to the people and towards power to the state/city. THIS decision is why I'm a conservative. This decision REEKS with the same stench as welfare benefits. It's disgusting, and nobody really, truly cares.

Not that we weren't headed that way, but this decision further harkens our descent. Watch and learn governments - this is NOT the way to be. When the US comes crumbling down (which it is going to around the world shortly), everyone will swear they didn't see it coming. "Where were the signs? How were we to know??" READ THIS CASE. LEARN.

No "world power" has been the world power forever. People think the US is sooooooo top of its game because it has been for our entire lifetime. How do you think the Greeks felt? Or the Romans or the British or the Spaniards or Egypt or USSR? All major major world powers at one point, all have fallen. We're next, guys. *I* see it coming.

06/25/2005 01:27:35 PM · #52

Originally posted by frychikn:

Since unlimited eminent domain is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment,

According to who???? Not according to Breyer, Ginsburg, and the liberals on the court.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

06/25/2005 01:33:13 PM · #53

Look; there is a Conservative and Liberal philosophy. If you are conservative than this is highly appaling. If you are a Liberal, then this is up your alley. The ACLU has no problem with this ruling, remember its founder a hard core socialist and hence the ongoing philosophy of this institution.

This ruling plays well into the hands of Liberals and the ACLU. These groups seek to change the Constitution to fully allow the transfer of wealth and property from one party to another.

No surprise here, conservatives see this coming. I have always maintained that Liberals do not really understand the end game because the attack on capitalism will eventually render this country just another third world. We are big because of capitalism and Liberals figured we could be bigger if we took the overabundance from the rich and give it to the poor.

Well money is property and therefore a Socialist State is bound to clain all property.

So again, no surprise here, this is simply the Liberal's agenda chipping away at the giant to bring it to its knees.

I have always argued for the end game. This is why judges who protect the Constitution are so important to maintain the greatness. Keep in mind that when the Liberals win, property rights are removed from their hands.

Message edited by author 2005-06-25 13:35:05.

David Ey

Nikon D80

06/25/2005 02:28:08 PM · #54

It doesn't really matter how you read it today or what the electors who passed it thought when they voted on it, in a few years it will mean whatever the powers that be says it says. Just like our Constitution.
Chip by chip we are loosing our rights.

Message edited by author 2005-06-25 19:27:20.

MadMordegon

06/25/2005 08:34:55 PM · #55

Graphicfunk, you know I respect your photography; but the partisan crap that comes out of your mouth is just ridiculous.

I know of 0 liberals who are happy about this ruling. In fact, Iâ��ve yet to hear from 1 person at all who is happy with this. But that is probably because I donâ��t know any millionaires or politicians.

Message edited by author 2005-06-25 20:35:19.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/25/2005 09:18:30 PM · #56

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are. What is it about Liberals that continue to deny their propensity towards Socialism. MadMordegon, your liberals friends should be ecstatic. Liberals proudly present themselves as the redistributors of other's people wealth. Social Security was presented in one light. It was at once perverted as a budget for liberals ro redistribute wealth. Every year they conceived ways to use up the collected funds. Then many other agencies came into being but one thing prevented total control: property right. They needed to eliminate this aspect in order to really take from one and give to another.

In reality, this is a big boost for liberals because they believe the State should own everything. What is so hard to understand unless you are a pseudo-Liberal. Remember, liberals want to level the playing field in everything. Is this ruling not a gem to accomplish this end?

love

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

06/25/2005 09:45:48 PM · #57

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are. . .

this comment is amazing - the word "some" could have been inserted here

Travis99

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/25/2005 09:53:04 PM · #58

I do not believe the federal govermnet was ever suposed to have as much power or be as much involved in our personal lives as they are now.

What can we do about it?

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

06/25/2005 10:09:11 PM · #59

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by frychikn:
Since unlimited eminent domain is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment,

According to who???? Not according to Breyer, Ginsburg, and the liberals on the court.

According to the United States Constitution....

06/25/2005 10:10:49 PM · #60

Originally posted by frychikn:

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by frychikn:
Since unlimited eminent domain is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment,

According to who???? Not according to Breyer, Ginsburg, and the liberals on the court.

According to the United States Constitution....

Which only says what the USSC wants it to say.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

06/25/2005 10:30:24 PM · #61

Originally posted by fotoshootme:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are. . .

this comment is amazing - the word "some" could have been inserted here

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are right. The moderate term is "some" It is just that many liberals never admit their romance with socialism or with giving the government the ultimate control. Either they are insincere or they miss the point why they are Liberals.

photodude

06/25/2005 10:33:11 PM · #62

One thing we are all forgetting here is that the Supreme Court only ruled that the government CAN use its power of eminent domain to seize property for private purposes.

Instead of relying on courts for all our solutions, maybe we will now go back to the ballot box. How many people who are troubled by this ruling, have ever called up their state legislators to let them know that if they ever abuse this power in any way, they will permanently lose a vote. Those messages can be very powerful to people whose primary purpose is to get reelected or elected for higher office.

David Ey

Nikon D80

06/25/2005 10:37:17 PM · #63

America has become Socio-communist, right under our noses.
Nothing can be done, until economic collapse. For a good look into the future of America, study the Soviet Union. No one would have thought it would go away, but it did, almost over night.
Must say it started with George Washington. As president,he insisted he not be given a salary, but rather have authority to spend as he wished on whatever his little old heart desired. Aquired a lot of 'stuff' too, didn't he?

06/25/2005 11:26:59 PM · #64

Please, someone explain to me how this is a liberal decision. It appears to me that of the 5 justices that voted to uphold emminent domain 3 were appointed by Republican presidents...Stevens by Ford and Kennedy by Reagan and Souter by Bush.

Also, this is the farthest thing from socialism that I could imagine.
It is only in the rhetoric that makes it sound like this ruling is in favor of the land being used for the "public good." However, the land that will be confiscated will be given over to big business corporations who are already paying the politicians in the form of campaign contributions to pass laws for their benefit. This is hardly what liberals have in mind for the public good and is certainly not socialism.

06/25/2005 11:48:22 PM · #65

Originally posted by mavrik:

My issue is that we are creeping and creeping towards all-powerful governments and everyone has decided that each issue is not worth the all-out fight it is going to take. What are we WAITING for, 1984? How, WHY do we let this all happen? Cuz it's easier? Governments hold ALL the power and nobody is willing to cut their knees out from under them in ANY way. We all abide by the system, even as they change the system under our noses. Nobody is really willing to put forth the effort.

I respectfully disagree. We are NOT heading towards all-powerful governments, but rather, what we are heading for is the dissolution of the nation-state in favor of the corporate state. This is happening through the process and pacts of globalization such as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Starting with Bush I, every president has pushed through one of these pacts, and now Bush II wants to push through CAFTA. These agreements do not just open up trade between the nations that sign on to them, but make corporate rights sovereign over the laws that were passed by a government. What these pacts really do is give the corporations the rights to resources grab. They can claim they have the rights to raw materials of a land, and not to obey the local environmental laws for example.

This ruling by the Supreme Court upholds, and promotes more corporate globalization policies. We are seeing it here in this precendent establishing ruling on New London, Ct. The United States is becoming weaker as a result of corporate greed, take overs and they can claim equal citizenship with the inhabitants of our land. This is why real liberals, not the ones defined by the conservative right, have spoken out loud about these issues and others. It's the conservatives who have remained silent so long as business interests were being catered to.

As for this being a "big business" decision, it's not. It's really a decision for the power of the city government and the liberals are once again pushing us away from power to the people and towards power to the state/city. THIS decision is why I'm a conservative. This decision REEKS with the same stench as welfare benefits. It's disgusting, and nobody really, truly cares.

I agree with this, but would add it's welfare for the corporations, not the people. Again, it's corporations that are going to benefit from this ruling, not individuals.

Not that we weren't headed that way, but this decision further harkens our descent. Watch and learn governments - this is NOT the way to be. When the US comes crumbling down (which it is going to around the world shortly), everyone will swear they didn't see it coming. "Where were the signs? How were we to know??" READ THIS CASE. LEARN.

One of the reasons that the US is going to be in big trouble is because the power and money will be in the hands of the few (read rich), and not in the hands of the people. Also, the current Bush administration is putting the US on very shakey ground fiscally by borrowing a tremendous amount of money for the two wars overseas.

06/26/2005 12:10:37 AM · #66

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are. What is it about Liberals that continue to deny their propensity towards Socialism. MadMordegon, your liberals friends should be ecstatic. Liberals proudly present themselves as the redistributors of other's people wealth. Social Security was presented in one light. It was at once perverted as a budget for liberals ro redistribute wealth. Every year they conceived ways to use up the collected funds. Then many other agencies came into being but one thing prevented total control: property right. They needed to eliminate this aspect in order to really take from one and give to another.

In reality, this is a big boost for liberals because they believe the State should own everything. What is so hard to understand unless you are a pseudo-Liberal. Remember, liberals want to level the playing field in everything. Is this ruling not a gem to accomplish this end?

Sorry, but this is anything but a big boost for liberals. Liberals are horrified of this ruling and have been outspoken opponents of power/money/land grabbing by governments, or corporations. As has been pointed out already, I don't hear you complaining about the land grab this government did to the Native American. If that was wrong, shouldn't we be giving reparations to Native Americans? How about the labor force grab from Africa? African Americans helped to build this land but didn't get paid for their sacrifices and sweat...shouldn't we be giving them reparations as well?

Liberals are not interested in having the state own everything, that is totalitarianism. Liberals are concerned with the greed and corruption that come with big business and big government at the expense of peoples' rights, the environment, workers' rights, etc.

As for social security, it was conceived as an insurance program for all people, rich and poor and a retirement pension, however meager the payout. Let me remind you that it's the current Bush administration that are using up the funds in the social security trust fund to help pay for the two wars overseas. His administration is responsible for redistribution of that wealth.

AllgoodPics

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

06/26/2005 12:30:00 AM · #67

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Look at what they have determined to be the "public good". They specifically named increasing tax revenues to be the public good. Look, this ruling will pit everyone against everyone else while the politicians sit back and rake in more of our hard earned money as taxes. If a developer wants to take your older neighborhood say, that contains some run down houses and many older but nice homes, they first try to get you and your neighbors to sell. So he gets a few, maybe the older couple down the street that were planning on moving to Florida any way. He runs into quite a few that refuse. So what does he do? He gets the city invloved. They condem the property and you property value goes to pot. You are forced to sell and get a fraction of the value for your home. Now he comes in and builds a few hundred condos and a strip mall. His company manages the condos and leases space in the mall. Taxes go up because were you had a few older homes before you now have a few hundred nice new (hi priced) condos and some commercial property. More property tax. You have more people living in the area buying more stuff. More sales tax. You now have business in the area. Business tax. So everybody is happy, except you of course because you only got a small fraction of your homes value. But what happens a few years down the road after they have put in the new interstate highway exchange and bypass? Well your developer frined find himself (along with all those families and new businesses) on the other end of this rope. Now some large corporation wants the property near the bypass to build their new trucking terminal/plant/whatever. And this story keeps getting repeated. Who wins? The politicians that keep increasing the tax base that they doll out to us unwashed masses and they see fit. At which point they say "look at what we are doing for you, you need to re-elect us."

This ruling is good for no one except the career politician! Its that simple. Liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat, it doesn't matter. We all loose.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/26/2005 12:48:00 AM · #68

I understand how it works and am not in favor of this ruling. I was challenging the people in this thread that have blamed this on liberals.

love

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

06/26/2005 01:29:10 AM · #69

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are. What is it about Liberals that continue to deny their propensity towards Socialism. MadMordegon, your liberals friends should be ecstatic. Liberals proudly present themselves as the redistributors of other's people wealth. Social Security was presented in one light. It was at once perverted as a budget for liberals ro redistribute wealth. Every year they conceived ways to use up the collected funds. Then many other agencies came into being but one thing prevented total control: property right. They needed to eliminate this aspect in order to really take from one and give to another.

In reality, this is a big boost for liberals because they believe the State should own everything. What is so hard to understand unless you are a pseudo-Liberal. Remember, liberals want to level the playing field in everything. Is this ruling not a gem to accomplish this end?

Sorry, but this is anything but a big boost for liberals. Liberals are horrified of this ruling and have been outspoken opponents of power/money/land grabbing by governments, or corporations. As has been pointed out already, I don't hear you complaining about the land grab this government did to the Native American. If that was wrong, shouldn't we be giving reparations to Native Americans? How about the labor force grab from Africa? African Americans helped to build this land but didn't get paid for their sacrifices and sweat...shouldn't we be giving them reparations as well?

Liberals are not interested in having the state own everything, that is totalitarianism. Liberals are concerned with the greed and corruption that come with big business and big government at the expense of peoples' rights, the environment, workers' rights, etc.

As for social security, it was conceived as an insurance program for all people, rich and poor and a retirement pension, however meager the payout. Let me remind you that it's the current Bush administration that are using up the funds in the social security trust fund to help pay for the two wars overseas. His administration is responsible for redistribution of that wealth.

<~~~~standing ovation - bravo!

06/26/2005 01:42:46 PM · #70

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These responses are all air. All administrations, have wasted or redistrubuted Social Security Funds. No need to blame Bush. But of course, Liberals do not see a pending war. So there is no point in expounding about the spread of freedom to defuse the caldron of hatred towards the western men of which you are one.

Now about the crap that Liberals walk a higher moral ground because they care. This is all self delusional. Erase the past history and you will not be talking because you would not be here. The ways of the world and the evolution and movement of societies is not a subject that you nor anybody can easily grasp. The best we can all do is to make corrections and this we are doing. You can go on the Liberal rampage of hate America, but America has done more than any other nation on the face of the earth to advance civilization.

You can go into your fetal position and bang your chest that we have wronged so terrible that there is no forgiveness, but not all see the world so bleak. Best to look ahead and make it a better world not by castigating or showing open hatred for your country and your countrymen but by becoming involved in protecting individula rights.

Your guilt is what gives you the belief that we should be destroyed by our enemy because we are no good. In any evolution there is waste and there is life and death and no one man or group or nation can control a design that is being weaved by providence.

To conclude: show me one Liberal who is against this court ruling. There is a fuzzy concept to waht a Liberal is. A liberal wants no wars, period. Idealistic but very naive. There are designs in the making from the start of the human drama to dominate over another. The Liberals want no big corporations, think of what your life would be without these giants. In short, a Liberal is against capitalism which means he prefers socialism as the lessor evil and look around the world as these paradign of socialism fail.

Again, when you climb the pulpit to say how much better you are, do you really feel good at the false sense of superioty? Do you not think that you are overplaying your hand, like who made you better then the rest of us. Liberals is the feel good philosophy but not really attached to the reality of life.

Message edited by author 2005-06-26 13:44:32.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

06/26/2005 02:54:50 PM · #71

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are. What is it about Liberals that continue to deny their propensity towards Socialism. MadMordegon, your liberals friends should be ecstatic. Liberals proudly present themselves as the redistributors of other's people wealth. Social Security was presented in one light. It was at once perverted as a budget for liberals ro redistribute wealth. Every year they conceived ways to use up the collected funds. Then many other agencies came into being but one thing prevented total control: property right. They needed to eliminate this aspect in order to really take from one and give to another.

In reality, this is a big boost for liberals because they believe the State should own everything. What is so hard to understand unless you are a pseudo-Liberal. Remember, liberals want to level the playing field in everything. Is this ruling not a gem to accomplish this end?

Sorry, but this is anything but a big boost for liberals. Liberals are horrified of this ruling and have been outspoken opponents of power/money/land grabbing by governments, or corporations. As has been pointed out already, I don't hear you complaining about the land grab this government did to the Native American. If that was wrong, shouldn't we be giving reparations to Native Americans? How about the labor force grab from Africa? African Americans helped to build this land but didn't get paid for their sacrifices and sweat...shouldn't we be giving them reparations as well?

Liberals are not interested in having the state own everything, that is totalitarianism. Liberals are concerned with the greed and corruption that come with big business and big government at the expense of peoples' rights, the environment, workers' rights, etc.

As for social security, it was conceived as an insurance program for all people, rich and poor and a retirement pension, however meager the payout. Let me remind you that it's the current Bush administration that are using up the funds in the social security trust fund to help pay for the two wars overseas. His administration is responsible for redistribution of that wealth.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These responses are all air. All administrations, have wasted or redistrubuted Social Security Funds. No need to blame Bush. But of course, Liberals do not see a pending war. So there is no point in expounding about the spread of freedom to defuse the caldron of hatred towards the western men of which you are one.

Now about the crap that Liberals walk a higher moral ground because they care. This is all self delusional. Erase the past history and you will not be talking because you would not be here. The ways of the world and the evolution and movement of societies is not a subject that you nor anybody can easily grasp. The best we can all do is to make corrections and this we are doing. You can go on the Liberal rampage of hate America, but America has done more than any other nation on the face of the earth to advance civilization.

You can go into your fetal position and bang your chest that we have wronged so terrible that there is no forgiveness, but not all see the world so bleak. Best to look ahead and make it a better world not by castigating or showing open hatred for your country and your countrymen but by becoming involved in protecting individula rights.

Your guilt is what gives you the belief that we should be destroyed by our enemy because we are no good. In any evolution there is waste and there is life and death and no one man or group or nation can control a design that is being weaved by providence.

To conclude: show me one Liberal who is against this court ruling. There is a fuzzy concept to waht a Liberal is. A liberal wants no wars, period. Idealistic but very naive. There are designs in the making from the start of the human drama to dominate over another. The Liberals want no big corporations, think of what your life would be without these giants. In short, a Liberal is against capitalism which means he prefers socialism as the lessor evil and look around the world as these paradign of socialism fail.

Again, when you climb the pulpit to say how much better you are, do you really feel good at the false sense of superioty? Do you not think that you are overplaying your hand, like who made you better then the rest of us. Liberals is the feel good philosophy but not really attached to the reality of life.

---------> Standing Ovation ---------------> Double Bravo!!

RonBeam

Minolta DiMAGE 7

06/26/2005 02:55:55 PM · #72

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

If you will think back, Kennedy's appointment was a bone thrown to the Democratically controlled House and Senate in order for Reagan to get legislation passed in order to expand the economy, which at the time teetered on a depression. Kennedy's liberal leanings have always been a thorny reminder of Congressional boondoggling to many conservatives.

MadMordegon

06/26/2005 06:43:13 PM · #73

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

In reality, this is a big boost for liberals because they believe the State should own everything.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Remember, liberals want to level the playing field in everything.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

But of course, Liberals do not see a pending war.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

You can go on the Liberal rampage of hate America

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

The Liberals want no big corporations,

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Liberals is the feel good philosophy but not really attached to the reality of life.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

There is a fuzzy concept to waht a Liberal is. A liberal wants no wars, period.

You my friend, as you have demostrated above, have no idea what a liberal is or what we want. Let me refresh your memory a little; Per dictionary.com:

-Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
-Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
-Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
-Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
-Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

To conclude: show me one Liberal who is against this court ruling.

Right here pal and every "liberal" I know.

An old saying once told to me by a wise old man;

"The problem with the world is that ignorant and bigoted people are so sure of themselves, and thoughtful people are so full of doubts."

Message edited by author 2005-06-26 18:45:11.