| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/23/2005 06:47:12 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Jefferson would start another Boston Tea Party over this sort of thing. |
Well-said Roger. What do you think would be the modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party? |
:D I don't know!
Perhaps putting sugar in the gas tanks of the developer's bulldozers?
Pulling down each days construction? |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 06:55:43 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Arcanist:
...are we really in a democracy any longer? |
Were we ever?
This whole things were better in the past stuff is nothing more than romanticized history. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 07:59:22 PM · #28 |
Well said Gingerbaker. Thom Hartmann is one of my favorite authors of all time. I have recommended this book by him here before and I’ll do it again, Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. I just finished reading this book for the 2nd time; I HIGHLY recommend it to EVERYONE regardless of color or creed.
It is true that now the person is the 2nd class citizen and the corporation is on top. The United States makes most of its decisions now based on the interests of big business. If this latest example does not reflect that, I don’t know what does.
Even war is a big business.
President Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander of World War 2, warned in his farewell speech:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Also I fully agree with those on stopping the partisan crap. It is far too easy to disavow or agree with something just because of the label.
As Thomas Jefferson said:
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
or to have them endlessly bicker on partisan sides.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:17:33 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by micknewton:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Jefferson would start another Boston Tea Party over this sort of thing. |
Well-said Roger. What do you think would be the modern day equivalent of the Boston Tea Party? |
:D I don't know!
Perhaps putting sugar in the gas tanks of the developer's bulldozers?
Pulling down each days construction? |
You my friend are a seditionist! How dare you advocate harming the interests of helpless corporations! After all, they only have our best interests at heart. And, they also know, better than we do, what's good for us.
On a more serious note: I believe this decision handed down by the court is just plain wrong, and totally un-American. The justices that agreed to this decision ought to have their asses removed. Perhaps that's already happened though, because they're certainly full of shit.
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 20:18:31.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:49:18 PM · #30 |
I dont know one person that I have come across on either side of the political arena that thinks this is a good idea. This is absolute insanity.
Every one knows about the briefcases filled with 100 dollar bills seen in all the movies to buy someone off.
There will be alot of briefcases sold in the very near future. Because this is just a license to steal some old neighborhood folks of their money, thier house, thier tradition and their dignity.
Pitiful, and sickening.
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 20:51:39. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 08:55:18 PM · #31 |
oops...
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 20:55:52. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 09:53:44 PM · #32 |
| Don't be surprised when China takes us over. We're too stupid to deserve to hold on to what our forefathers gave us. How in hell did we ever give this much control over to appointed and elected officials? |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:00:28 PM · #33 |
| I'm not worried about China. It's the EU that is going to take over the world. Actually I really believe that the EU is going to consolidate and become bigger and stronger than the US. Maybe not soon, but some day. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:01:26 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Emmenit Domain has always been rule of law. I see no difference in this as someome group telling some land owner that he can't build on his land becasue of some stupid bird that has a nest in a tree.... |
The difference is huge.
There is a big difference between not being able to build new on a piece of land, and having YOUR land taken from you.
Case in point, a couple in their 80's living in Connecticut in a home that has been in their family for over 100 years, are going to be forcibly moved. |
Hmmmmm....... reminds me of something........oh yeah.......how the United States governing body just took my peoples land either by lies, trickery, or force.
I am not surprised, just another Big Government crime in the name of progress or national securtiy.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:08:19 PM · #35 |
Well...I'm not going to discuss America's problems or my thoughts on the matter infront of such a diverse group of people such as this site.
That being said...I'd love for someone to tell me to move out of my home to put up a Wal Mart or a Hilton...that would be the day.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:18:44 PM · #36 |
(didn't read all of the posts)
I believe this is already happening. I've seen it on the news for awhile. I remember one town was on beachfront and they were kicking people out and "offering them" new condos. One lady, now widowed, lived in the home (where they raised thier kids) for like 50-60 years or something. She said they would have to take her out in cuffs.
I've heard of it happening in other towns as well. I guess they can pretty much do what they want and you can't/will have a very hard time stopping them.
Sucks.
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 22:20:08.
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:28:04 PM · #37 |
the problem with this is...
if you've ever read the fine print, you know it's the dwelling you own.. and not usually the land (within city limits). The truth is, you really only lease the 'land' from the government.. You make payments via property tax. Now figure this, which number would they rather collect on.. You 200,000 dollar house, or a multi million dollar building. Answers anyone?
|
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:29:26 PM · #38 |
And one more thing. Devolpers have millions and millions of dollars they are just dying to spend money on some hot new land that could be the next gold mine.
All cities are screaming about their budgets, and they have no money left.
I think you know where I am going....
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 22:33:14. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 10:29:46 PM · #39 |
Just give it a few more years when we the United States fall from our no. 1 position in the world power structure down to no. 3 or 4 and were all issued our laws and rights from China. Its already to late, were all including myself too consumed with keeping our Immediate perimeter secure in the sence of being comfy with our cars, and can openers. Were a pasive society where 1/billionth of persons stand up for whats right or what they believe in.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2005 05:34:25 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Supreme Court Justices = core party leadership? Since when?
R. |
If you do not think political agendas are fostered through the judicial branch, you are being extremely naive. |
Oh, I'm well aware it happens, distressingly often. My point is that Supreme Court justices are not "core party leadership". That some of them act as judiciary arms of "their party" is indisputable IMO.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-06-24 05:41:23.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2005 01:16:12 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by RonBeam:
Originally posted by mavrik:
Yeah I have a comment:
Ginsburg
Kennedy
Souter
Breyer
Stevens
I guess we can get OFF Bush being bad for the country now? |
Breyer and Ginsburg were Bill Clinton appointments to the Supreme Court ... and siding with big business against the rights of the individual? Hmmm ... hopefully this action will put to rest the fiction perpetuated by liberals that their core leadership are untouched by special interest. |
Well, yes, it's true that Clinton was pretty chummy with big business himself, but we're missing the point of this unfortunate supreme court decision. The automatic reaction is to be surprised that the left-leaning justices voted in favor of eminent domain while Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor voted in favor of the property owners, but when you think about it further it is not really surprising at all. The political left does not much like the idea of people owning private property; rather, they much prefer collectivism. Therefore the vote is not surprising at all. Of course the left will not miss a chance to hypocritically bash Bush and company whenever some condo tower or office park developer is able to forcibly displace some individual property owners. |
|
|
|
06/25/2005 01:18:29 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Can we keep partisan bullshit out of this? This is far bigger than a partisan spitting contest and minimalising it to that is exactly what our leaders want us to do, stay stupid and stay disorganized.
Plain and simple, this is yet another chip away at our constitutional rights by our government against us. Again the US government takes the side of big business instead of the people. |
Did you actually post this with a straight face? |
|
|
|
06/25/2005 01:27:15 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Can we keep partisan bullshit out of this? This is far bigger than a partisan spitting contest and minimalising it to that is exactly what our leaders want us to do, stay stupid and stay disorganized.
Plain and simple, this is yet another chip away at our constitutional rights by our government against us. Again the US government takes the side of big business instead of the people. |
I missed where you mentioned your suggested course of action. |
That's the scary part. What can we do? The Supremes are in for life, and we didn't vote them in. We count on them to defend the fundamental rights our constitution is supposed to ensure we retain. Freedom from arbitrary seizure of property is extremely fundamental. To allow states and municipalities free rein to determine what's in "our" best interests with barely a nod to the constitutional guarantee that we own belongs to us, is to chip away at the very foundations of our national identity. This used to be a country where the indvidual mattered.
Robt. |
Since unlimited eminent domain is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment, I believe that eventually this decision will be overturned, but unfortunatly it could take a long time waiting for the wheels of justice to turn, and in the meantime a lot of unlucky individuals will lose their hard-earned homes and/or small businesses because of eminent domain abuse fueled by pure greed. |
|
|
|
06/25/2005 02:14:13 AM · #44 |
You barbarians! I'll sue the council for every penny it's got! I’ll have you hung, drawn, and quartered! And whipped! And boiled...until...until...until you've had enough. And then I will do it again! And when I've finished I will take all the little bits, and I will JUMP on them! And I will carry on jumping on them until I get blisters, or I can think of anything even more unpleasant to do...
--Arthur Dent, upon hearing the fate of his house
Message edited by author 2005-06-25 02:16:10.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2005 02:29:41 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Since unlimited eminent domain is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment, I believe that eventually this decision will be overturned, but unfortunatly it could take a long time waiting for the wheels of justice to turn, and in the meantime a lot of unlucky individuals will lose their hard-earned homes and/or small businesses because of eminent domain abuse fueled by pure greed. |
I believe that's 5th Amendment, but yes, you're right. As to the apparent anomaly of the "liberal" justices taking the side of big business, that's actually a byproduct of, not a reason for, their position. Historically, liberals believe strongly that states, cities, municipalities should be able to take control of their environments and adjust them for the common good. Loosely speaking, liberals are in favor of having government, at whatever level, operate proactively to make things happen. The big-daddy cases-in-point would be Roosevelt's WPA and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA, in particular, simply annihilated the landholdings of thousands of poor, rural folk, inundating dozens of townships in the name of flood control. The floods being controlled, of course, were happening far downriver in "productive" areas.
What's different here is that the land being seized is in no way depressed or blighted; it's just that the town of New London itself, in the eyes of its elected officials and businesspeople of all stripes, needs an economic kick in the ass, and that's what they want to build. The people who favor this development would say that the fact that certain powerful interests will profit immensely from the project is irrelevant, since the town itself will profit even more. They cloak what they're doing in a sort of pseudo-populist rhetoric, but this doesn't change the nature of the beast. It's a naked land grab, and it's being done so private developers can erect something. Even if it IS good for the town as a whole, it's still wrong, and it sets a horrible precedent.
The 5th amendment was written to make this sort of thing impossible, and only the legal fiction that a corporation has the same rights as an individual is allowing this to happen. That single, legal fictrion, incidentally, is arguably at the root of most of the problems we have with big business today. It USED to be the case (look it up) that all corporations were regarded as temporary, and were required to disband themselves after (I think, not sure of the exact time span) 50 years.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2005 12:20:39 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Can we keep partisan bullshit out of this? This is far bigger than a partisan spitting contest and minimalising it to that is exactly what our leaders want us to do, stay stupid and stay disorganized.
Plain and simple, this is yet another chip away at our constitutional rights by our government against us. Again the US government takes the side of big business instead of the people. |
I missed where you mentioned your suggested course of action. |
My opinion: We need to get rid of the "career politicians". We can all say what we like about Bush, Durban, Chaney, Kennedy, etc. These guys an gals who have built their lives on "public service" (and I use that term loosely) tend to do things that are in their best interest (i.e. to keep their jobs). Republican or Democrat, they're are basically the same and have similar goals, though their methods may vary. Ultimately they want keep their jobs and to do that they need more tax money (read our money) to buy votes via governmental hand outs. Term limits should be imposed. Unfortunately, the ones who would have to enact that legislation are the same ones who it would adversely effect so don't hold your breath. Concerning the recent Supreme Court ruling: this is a sad day. I can support, in a limited way, the acquisition of private property for public ventures that are aimed at benefiting the public (i.e. roads, parks, etc.). With out it we would not be able to build interstates and the like. When the Titans came to Nashville the city condemned property on the river to build the stadium. Although it is "city" property, the real benefactor of that confiscation is Bud Adams. That was wrong! Another aspect of all of this is the level of compensation for the property. The government agencies will typically low ball the price for the property. Once the property is condemned the value is drastically reduced by act of condemnation. So ultimately the owner losses and with this new ruling big business and governments win. One more thing. Stated in the decision one of the things that makes this process for the "public good" is if it increases tax revenues. Like it or not, government has never been fiscally responsible so giving them more money is akin to dropping a brick of heroin into the lap of an addict. Just my opinion!
Mike
|
|
|
|
06/25/2005 12:34:20 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Arcanist:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I think also, that the referenced Supreme Court decision illuminates a larger and more insidious issue - that of the power of corporations, and their "rights" within a democracy.
|
Ok, so I'll bite and be the troll here...(LABEL WARNING!!!)
are we really in a democracy any longer? It seems more and more that we (USA) are becoming a Free Market Capitalistic Society, concerned more with big business, profit and buying our way into or out of situations (Enron, Tyco, Williams Communications) than selecting leaders and creating laws that protect the rights of the little people and help them to prosper in a safe and responsible way. |
Realize too, it isn't just big business that is the problem here. They are in bed with OUR elected political leaders who are also huge benefactors of this and other policies. We have allowed this to grow by turning a blind eye for far too long. Most people just want to live their lives and not be bothered with the details of the running of our nation. That disinterest give the wolfs the ability to raid the hen house.
We all need to wake up! I'm not sure what we can do at this point other that educating ourselves and taking a more active roll in the world around us. A Tea Party of sorts would most likely not do much these days unfortunatly.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2005 12:38:43 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Every one knows about the briefcases filled with 100 dollar bills seen in all the movies to buy someone off.
There will be alot of briefcases sold in the very near future. Because |
Maybe I should by stock in Samsonite! Oh hell, there I go falling into the big business trap! Somebody slap me!
|
|
|
|
06/25/2005 12:45:01 PM · #49 |
| I have an idea.... let's form a business and go claim the homes of the justices that passed this and turn them into a theme park...... or maybe Bush's ranch.... let's see how long this stays in place then..... |
|
|
|
06/25/2005 01:04:43 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Jewellian:
I have an idea.... let's form a business and go claim the homes of the justices that passed this and turn them into a theme park...... or maybe Bush's ranch.... let's see how long this stays in place then..... |
Don't for one minute think that the rules/laws that apply to you and me also apply equally to those in power (justices, politicians, etc.).
Yes, our Constitution was enacted to give individuals rights and to limit the powers of governments (just read the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")
The unfortunate truth is that our Constitution has been so battered and diluted by rediculous decision like this one that it is becoming almost irrelavent when it comes to how our "leader" make decision. Along this line is a scary, but I think not commonly known about, concept that the justices have in the last few years employing. That is to consider the laws and rulings of other nations and basing their decisions more on those and less on our Governing Document, The Constitution of the United States of America. I'm not condeming other nations for passing and upholding their laws. But if I want to live under them, I'd move to those coutries. I love our Constitution (and swore an oath to it as an elisted member of the military which I still want and fell compelled to live up to) and I feel our laws should be judged my it and it alone, not what France, China, Germany, or EastBF thinks. |
|
