# Way Way OT



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

What the hell is going on in Long Branch, New Jersy? 
And the Supreme Court?

Have these jerks ever read the 5th Amendment to the Constitution?

The city is taking homes away from a neighborhood of middle class home owners, claiming Imminent Domain, which is only supposed to be used for public projects.

Why does New Jersy want to take their homes?

So they can sell the property to a private developer who will bring in wealthier home owners.

These people's homes and neighborhoods aren't blighted, aren't run down.

The city just wants to take away their property so that they can have private developers tear it down and move in wealthier, higher tax-paying citizens.

Every day it seems this country is starting to turn more and more into some sort of Twilight Zone version of the country I grew up in.

These people aren't having their homes bought to build a major highway or throughway, but just so they can move in wealthier people who will pay more taxes.

Where are all these conservative and liberal politicians who all supposedly want to protect our property rights?

Watch out! Apparently now if a company decides they can use your land and home more profitably and taxibly then you can, the bastards can take your house!

It's exactly stuff like this that make those miltia nutballs look not so nuts!!!

Take a look at this weekends "Now" if you can.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Sorry about this off-topic post. But this just really burns my ass. Plus I know a lot of you guys, including Capt. Locknar, are buying new homes. My home has been in my family since 1911. I can't imagine what I would do if I were put in the position of these fellow Americans. Actually, I can imagine it. But would rather not. I don't think they let you do scale modeling in prison...


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

It sucks in a big way ! Property rights mean nothing any more ! I know I am in a battle with my home owner association right now on whether or not I can have a seat swing on my own front porch .I own my house out right ,paid for 100% and I have people telling me I can't have a swing on my own porch ! If I lose the appeal and leave the swing on my porch I will be fined $50 each week it is left out on the porch .I am going to a lawyer on monday to fight this ,I have been harassed since I moved into this house every month it is some petty little complaint .Like my trash can being out on trash day and my water hose being out while I use the sprinkler in my yard .At first it was my drive way needed cleaned it was clean but I power washed it to be sure sent in a letter and appealed the notice and got a waiver and then the next month I was sent a notice that my driveway was dirty again .So I had to write another letter and appeal again only to have to do it over the next month! That was finally let go by them and now it is something new every month!I bought my house to raise my daughter in after my wife passed away last year , I bought the house to be secure while I raised my daughter but, I have been under constant pressure and stress because of this HOA .Home ownership is not what I expected ,I thought that if you own your own home you could do with it what you want ,have your yard the way you want .But it is not so! I live under more rules now than I did renting!Sorry to rant on about this ,but if you can't complain to your friends who can you complain to?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Wow! Glad we don't have a homeowners' association around here! Sounds like a buncha petty beurocrats with nothing to do, and some kind of vendetta against you.

The nearest thing to that around here was when a neighbor stripped the paint off his house preparatory to putting on siding, then failed to get the money for siding. His house was pretty ugly, but it took the town of Oakland almost a year before they sent him a letter saying "paint it, side it, or start paying fines."

To the main topic - the Supreme court just said it was okay to steal land for development, so that's that, apparently. Not that it hasn't been going on forever anyway. Friend of mine lost his house 20 years ago when a factory was built in town, and he lived where the driveway was going to be. They ended up not even putting the driveway in anyway, but they still bulldozed his house.

Same across the street from the house where I grew up. Shortly after we moved away, my great-uncle's old house was plowed under for a development full of mansions.


----------



## Nighteagle2001 (Jan 11, 2001)

Chuck, New Jerseys not alone. there doing it in CT as well.

What we've got to do is write our congressmen, call them. Be a big pain in the ass to them. We have to tell them to draft legislation to protect homeowners from this kind of misuse of imminent domain. Remember the Supreme Court only interpets law, I does not make law. So if we react loud enough there is still hope. Don't forget '06 is an election year, and our lawmakers want to keep their jobs.


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Some friends of mine bought a 100 year old home in the historical district. They spent the last ten years renovating and redecorating it. Truly a beautiful home. They took the time to talk to the historical society (which is supposed to regulate these areas) to make sure they painted it historically accurate colors and kept the outside looking like it might have at the turn of the century. 

Last year someone bought the house next to theirs and painted it 
NEON LIME GREEN  WITH PURPLE TRIM. :freak: 
The historical society ran out of funding.

Unfortunately you can't regulate a sense of style. :wave:


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

I know it's illegal and all, but adding stuff like coke to the fuel tanks of the construction eqpt. removing link pins on tractor treds, and adding telescope abrasives to the oil can soon cost the builders some cash. 

Funny who was on which side of the issue at the "supreme court" (lower case intended)

next they'll try it with guns...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm beginning to think the Supreme Court has flat out chosen to ignore the Constitution. The fifth Amendment to the Constitution says that imminent domain can only be exercised by the government for the good of the public. Not for the good of it's own tax coffers.

The government isn't supposed to be able to take away your land and property simply because they have been approached by a private enterprise that can show they can generate more income and property taxes for the government.

The key is that imminent domain is only supposed to be exercised for the good of the public, not for the good of ANY private enterprise NOR for the enrichment of the government's tax coffers.

For the good of the government's coffers and private enterprise DOES NOT EQUAL the good of the people.

That clause was specifically placed in the Constitution to prevent agents of the government from abusing their positions in order to seize our private property.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled they way they have, local and federal governments need only show that your neighborhood is declining in either upkeep generally or just plain old per capita income. Regardless of the fact that your property is pristine and to code.

The government need not even show that the property in your neighborhood is in disrepair. They need only claim that because income is dropping it is LIKELY to not be upkept.

Everyone in your neighborhood can have every home kept perfectly up to code, but if your area's income is declining they can label your area as "declining" and take away your property.

What it comes down to is that the Supreme Court has just told every American that you don't really EVER REALLY OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY!

If the government can find a developer or owner who the government simply feels can generate more taxes and income for their jurisdiction they can take your property away for no other reason then that!

It doesn't matter if you inherited your home.
It doesn't matter if you and your family struggled for decades and built a life and memories around it.
It doesn't matter if you did everything right and negotiated a great deal for your property in the free market.

None of that matters.
The government claims they can now take all of it away and sell it to a wealthier private enterprise; as long as they can show that that new developer will be paying them more taxes.

So forget about private property in America.
That no longer exists.
You own nothing so long as there is someone out there with more money then you have.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

John P said:


> Wow! Glad we don't have a homeowners' association around here! Sounds like a buncha petty beurocrats with nothing to do, and some kind of vendetta against you.
> 
> The nearest thing to that around here was when a neighbor stripped the paint off his house preparatory to putting on siding, then failed to get the money for siding. His house was pretty ugly, but it took the town of Oakland almost a year before they sent him a letter saying "paint it, side it, or start paying fines."
> 
> ...


His house should have never been bulldozed.
What they might have used there and almost 100% likely in the case of your friend's house being demolished for a driveway, was that the local government laid down plans for a either a new or widened street or thoroughfare.

Then they take away your house under the pretense that it's for a roadway. Then they somehow end up selling "surplus" land along the thoroughfare to developers.


----------



## NCC1701-A (Apr 19, 2005)

I here you.

Here in Daytona Beach they are trying to pull the same thing about imminent domain. Apparently many of the businesses on the beachside that have been there since the early 50/60's are being forced out because the big businesses that helped build the OceanWalk want to break down all the old stuff and put newer nicer and modern up to date things on the boardwalk. While the idea is sound about making everything newer and nicer, they are still trying to force out all the old mom and pop businesses that have been there for decades. Why not give them a lone to fix, repair or modernize everything.

Now while I do agree with the fact that the Daytona Beach boardwalk is a sewer, why not help rebuild whats there instead of breaking it down.

Add to the fact they are trying to do the same thing with some of the houses on beachside as well for either more extravagant homes, or for more modern up to date commercial businesses.

In all reality thought, the Daytona Beach City commissions are trying to make Daytona more like a Palm Beach/Santa Monica type of town.

Heck Donald Trump owns property here in Daytona, and if that don't spell it out, I do not know what will.

Later


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

There may be areas of the Daytona Beach boardwalk that aren't being upkept.
And those properties should be taken over.

But that doesn't give them the right to take over the property of the smaller owners who have kept up their property.

It's one thing if you truly do need to build a highway or throughway, or waste treatment facility, etc. etc.

But I think the line should be drawn between that and taking property away from a law-abiding citizen just because he either doesn't have the capital to make the property as profitable; or simply choses not to.

If he truly owns the property he should be able to do nothing but grow daisys on his land if he wants to.

Taking away property from law-abiding citizens who are not breaking the law, just to give it to someone or some other private enterprise that is wealthier and has a few politicians in their pocket is the kind of thing that lead to the American revolution in the first place.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Remember, irrelevent of your personal politics, it was the more conservative member of the court that voted firmly against it - the "liberals" are the ones who voted in favor...


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

beeblebrox said:


> Last year someone bought the house next to theirs and painted it
> NEON LIME GREEN  WITH PURPLE TRIM. :freak:
> The historical society ran out of funding.
> 
> Unfortunately you can't regulate a sense of style. :wave:


gee, i didnt know the joker had moved out of gotham.......


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> That clause was specifically placed in the Constitution to prevent agents of the government from abusing their positions in order to seize our private property.
> 
> Now that the Supreme Court has ruled they way they have, local and federal governments need only show that your neighborhood is declining in either upkeep generally or just plain old per capita income. Regardless of the fact that your property is pristine and to code.
> 
> ...


When I first read this story in the LA times (online) I was shocked that the Supreme Court had ruled this way. There was one line from a judge that was something to the effect that he wasn't going to second guess a local municipality. To my mind, what he was really saying is "excuse me while I abdicate my responsibility to protect indvidual citizens' rights..." What the heck is going on? How could he could possibly justify this? I'm not American (I live in Vancouver, BC), but it still scares me. I'm sure we'll catch up soon up here in the Great White (or in my case, Green) North.

Brad.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

I know this is a political thread and I have by no means any intention of closing this thread. 

This is one part of the NEW GOVERMENT that I am fighting on a daily basis. They haven't heard the last of me. What the heck if wrong with this government you say. Well for starters they have completely forgotten that they were ELECTED into office to SERVE THE PEOPLE, all they care about now is serving themselves and their wallets. The only thing that concerns them is how much money they can make (noticeably with the Congressional Pay raises ever year for pretty much doing nothing but sitting on their asses and taking away our freedoms one at a time). 
We are over in Iraq to bring them democracy and yet we loose more and more of it here everyday. One Freedom after another is being lost and 90% of the people just sit around and let it happen. Which freedom will we loose before you take a stand. 

I'm not trying to turn this into a politial board by no means. Just want you guys to realize hey, couple more freedoms lost, Curfews set in and Boom Communism in full swing.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Oh and Steven, I really feel for ya. If I had know before hand you were thinking of getting into a Home Owners Association I would have beaten you lol. I know its not funny but HOA are the worst thing in the world. A bunch of People who have nothing better to do then to tell other people how to live or how their yard should look. 

The house we moved out of last month we had neighbors almost to the same effect. My deck needed cleaning. 2 days into Spring they called the Health Department, complained and then complained that we had too many cars too (3 cars and a single line driveway). Occasionally we would rotate the vehicles and have to park on on the street in front of thier house. We wouldn't leave them their for long, maybe a couple hours or maybe on occasion overnight. They complained about that. They don't own the street. The health department showed up, asked about the cars and I assured them they all drove and were legal, plated and everything. The Health Department guy just laughed Told me not worry about anything, tidy up my deck and put everything int he garage (the garage has no doors on it) and told me so long as its behind the doorsill of the garage you can have whatever you like staring at your neighbors and they can kiss your butt lol. It just peaves me that neighbors have the gall nowadays to complain to the GOVERNMENT AGENCY than to walk over to you and say "hey I notice your decks a bit messy, do you mind cleaning it up". Same way with the HOA, they control your house man they really do. I have seen and heard many horror stories on HOA. Man I wish I had known.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Essentially, it boils down to whether the Supreme court wanted to interfere in a States rights issue AGAIN (Election 2000). Several states have built in protections against these kind of land grabs, Utah, being one I can think of currently. If your state doesn't have protections against land grabs, GASP!!! Somebody may have to put down the remote, even get OFF of the couch and get politically active, or call their Senator!What was his/her name again?
So, when liberal Judges rule like a Conservative usually does (pro business-re:interfering in States rights issues, abortion, anti-gay iniatives) it's a bad thing? 

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4626


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Dude, get off your Lib vs Con soapbox. When the Supreme Court effectively re-writes the takings clause of the 5th ammendment curtailing property rights then YES, it's a bad thing. I don't care what side of the political fence anyone is on (including the judges in this instance) this is a perverse and disgusting ruling.

You do raise a valid point about the States. If you don't live in a state with laws against this sort of emminent domain abuse then a very clear message needs to be sent to the local and state government that they should take corrective action immediately. And that they will be held accountable for it come election day.

Also, I've heard various reporters take about how the 5th ammendment GIVES the government the right to effectively take your property under certain conditions. That kind of comment really gets under my skin. The takings clause, in fact, restricts the government. Sheesh, how ignorant can they be?

The takings clause states that the government can not take your property unless it's 1) for "public use" -- road, fire station, police stationc, etc. and 2) you are justly compensated. Now I would argue that in practice the just compensation part was not being held to even prior to the ruling and that emminent domain abuses we're equally rampant. However at this point there is effectively nothing a citizen can do to stop it short of electing state officials that really care about individualism and the right to one's own property. Because you've just lost it at the federal level.

And for anyone who needs to hear it again: Increasing a properties tax revenue by taking it from one individual and giving it to another individual is NOT (I repeat NOT) a public use.

Welcome to the United States of America, check your property rights at the door.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Hell, you nothern HOA guys ought to count your blessings, you ain't seen petty till you add in the geezer factor we got here in condo groups in Naples Florida. The next youngest person besides us is twelve years older, I'm frequently called "sonny" at age 43, the wifes a baby at 35, and we are considered the "kids" of the complex. At our last meeting, one continual PIA lady was complaining her neighbors flower pots were too tall and had to be repotted or removed _immediately_. She was in a tizzy because condo rules say no flower pots over 18" tall, and her neighbors were 20", she knew because she had gone over to their patio and _measured_ them. Then she was was _really_ po'd when I pointed out she was lucky she wasn't mistaken for a raccoon and shot. This same woman used to call the police whenever her neighbors smoked on their lanais outside because she was allergic to cigarette smoke. We have as little to do with the board as possible, I love the episodes of _Seinfeld_ that show his parents involved in a board, and was totally unsurprised to hear on the DVD commentary it was based on real events at Seinfeld and Larry Davids parents condo's in Florida.


----------



## Trekfreak (Mar 26, 2005)

I live in Newark and there is a building boom of multi-family homes being build all over the place. Empty lots were children play are being bought up quickly and these homes are being put there. The thing about these homes are that the owners of these house are charging insane prices for these houses. Around or just over half a million dollars to be exact. The rent to live in these houses are incredibly expensive as well. INSANE! These houses aren't even built to code. In Newark, city fire codes say that new houses being built must be three feet away from a property line. This house right next to me is three feet away from our house. My mother has been approached thru mail or otherwise from real estate companies asking if we were interested in selling our home. This is big news in Newark about the whole "Imminent Domain" deal.
We are scared now that our house could be taken from us and all we are left with is a hundred thousand dollars for our trouble. We have lived in this house for thirteen years now, we have spend a lot of time and money renovating and making it our home and the courts can throw out the constitution and say that it's ok for some developer to take our home and do whatever they want with it. I guess justice is for sale. Those with money have the power. 

....no liberty and injustice for alll


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

F91 said:


> Essentially, it boils down to whether the Supreme court wanted to interfere in a States rights issue AGAIN (Election 2000). Several states have built in protections against these kind of land grabs, Utah, being one I can think of currently. If your state doesn't have protections against land grabs, GASP!!! Somebody may have to put down the remote, even get OFF of the couch and get politically active, or call their Senator!What was his/her name again?
> So, when liberal Judges rule like a Conservative usually does (pro business-re:interfering in States rights issues, abortion, anti-gay iniatives) it's a bad thing?
> 
> http://www.americandaily.com/article/4626


Please note this is NOT a state's rights issue. Muchless a liberal/conservative one. Plus the last time I checked there wasn't just one conservative judge on the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. A majority of the court's conservatives didn't vote for this? Nonesense! But that's totally beside the point. Just didn't want anyone to think that someone's not paying attention to what's being said.

There are both liberal and conservatives reasons as to why this is wrong. 
But I could care less about those labels right now. Wrong is wrong!

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution prohibits *ANY* government, local or federal, from claiming imminent domain for any reason other then the public good.

What has been changed lately is the Supreme Court allowing politicians who have been bought off to accept studies of declining income to allow governments to declare entire neighborhoods as "on the decline." 

They no longer even have to be defined as "blighted."

You and every single one of your fellow property owners in an area can be keeping perfect care of your property, yet still have the government force all of you to sell your property for no other reason then a private person/developer has convinced the government that they can generate more taxes for it with your legally obtained property then you can.

You and dozens of your neighbors can now have their property taken away from them because a developer promises the government to tear it all down and build small upscale townhouses.

In other words, you no longer really own a damn thing any more. Your deed and property can be snatched away from you by anyone with the money and clout to show what they'd like to do with your property would provide the government with higher taxes.

Not so a hospital that's deseperately needed can be built. Not to put in a needed regional freight airport, but simply because someone else who has their eye on what you have has the money to have the government force you to sell it to them.

You can no longer lay claim to truly owning anything.

Wrong is wrong and this is wrong. It's the kind of crap that revolutions are fought over.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

First, a disclaimer, I tend to be a strong liberal/libertarian.

This decision really bothers me. I was talking with a few of my friends from law school at work yesterday, and we all think the court supremely botched this one.

On a technical legal note, there was another decision clarifying (and somewhat liberalizing) the rules for federal class-action lawsuits. It was another 5-4 split decision, but the split was very odd. I'm still scratching my head over that one.

I'm glad my neighborhood's HOA is defunct at the moment. I need to mow my lawn badly, but I've been busy with the new job. Time to go do that now. It's nice not to have the HOA breathing down my neck about it, though.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

The real danger here is that the 'supreme court' will continue to legislate from the bench. Thats why a litmus test for exact meaning and use of the laws be used when choosing the judges. "Activist judges" are just as wacko as they can be. Te only way is to insure that no matter what the political leaning, that the words mean the same to all of them. where are the viginanties when you need them...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

There are some very exact language and definitions.

What no one can explain, either New Jersey or the Supreme Court, is how the hell you can take away someone's property based on the fact that an area's per capita income is declining and there is a CHANCE that in the future some of your neighbors might let their property violate city codes.

How the hell can you designate an area as "declining" and basically treat it as blighted property and take it away from law abiding citizens because some time in the future there MIGHT BE violations?

I'm sure there are some expensive neighborhoods whose per capita income is also going down due to outsourcing of jobs overseas.

Is the government going to tear down the homes of these wealthy people because their per capita income is on the decline and tear down their houses?

Hell no they won't! The whole deal is that there are pockets of communities where middle class families have occasionally been fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time and buy property that is now tremendously sought after. Most of the property where they are trying to force the New Jersey community residents out of and develop Townhouses are near the beach/shoreline.

God forbid someone who has spent a huge chunk of their lives paying for and buying homes they raised their families in be allowed to simply keep what is rightfully theirs!

Can't have anyone who isn't filthy rich living near the beach!


----------



## NCC1701-A (Apr 19, 2005)

Pretty soon we will all have tiny microships inside our body to monitor everything we do. 

You can laugh and say it's funny, but California is already starting this idea of implementing chips in people for medical and criminal aspects.

It's becoming the world we all fear, the rich get richer the poor get poorer, and the middle class will soon be gone.

But it isn't so much the Politicians that come up with these ideas of imminent domain and the other froot loop laws, it is the fact that the big businesses and lawyers that run this country are coming up with this stuff. And don't forget the fact the every day, little by little, more and more companies becomes the owner ship or pawns of companies outside this country. If anything blame the fact that the average or just the peoples vote does not count as much as it did, if it ever.

This country will soon be the property of the UN and when they get there hands on this country it will really start to go to H''l in a handbasket.

It sounds crazy but alot of the laws that are being adopted here in this country are ones the UN has had in place for years. Best one to offer up is the death sentence, this is the only country that believes in capital punishment for crimes, not to say that the there aren't some middle eastern countries that don't do the same. However for some reason, we seem to be more civilized and the middle eastern more barbaric. How that works I will never know, but the day is coming, the rights we have come to enjoy for the past 50 to 100 years all coming to a crashing end. They believe it's easier to try and rehabilitate someone then kill them, and eye for and eye in my book, you kill someone for a crime your life should be taken, and if we got rid of all these tons of appeals in the courts that affect criminals and corporations, in the end it would be cheaper to execute them.

The fact that we as citizens get so scared from a couple of planes crashing into a couple of buildings proves my point, we enjoy just an unreal measure of security in this country, heaven for bid something really bad should happen then what will we do. People of this country do not know what it's like to truely starve, like those in 3rd world countries, or the fact that almost everyday a car bomb or even a minor terrorist attack happens in Isreal. If people truely believed in what they wanted or fought for, or what this country stands for, the government wouldn't get away with half the stuff it does, and I don't mean things like Iraq, I supported that cause, but I think it's more important to take care of our own country then be the world savior.

Some may or may not agree with me, but if you listened as an example of some of the Political repoir from Georger Carlin I think he said it best and I qoute "If big business thought for one moment there would be money made in helping the homless and underpriveledge, they would bank on that in a heart beat." And believe it or not the guy knows what he's talking about, he's very smart.

In all though when it comes right down to it, the people of this country have to rally together to stop what our government does, and since the young majority of the country are constantly being mislead and do not know how to do the research to find the truth that lies under all the beuocratic BS the government will eventually get what it wants.

However our society today only cares about its own hedonistic ways, what they want, how to get it and how to screw the other guy over, or take what ever they want. We will be the next Rome, and when we fall just like every empire in history has, we will be left with a crumbled society and an anarchy for a government.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

eeek...don't get me started on this "activist judges" propaganda crap. It's a bunch of total BS.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Things like this will create more people like timothy mcveigh.


----------



## NCC1701-A (Apr 19, 2005)

The-Nightsky said:


> Things like this will create more people like timothy mcveigh.



Maybe, maybe not. There was a whole lot more to the Mcveigh plot then anyone, even the government would admit to.

And you may not believe in conspiracy, but in all reality a conspiracy is just a plot to gain control and power. And history is full of plots and conspiracy.

Our government is full of conspiracy, everyone just chooses to ignore the facts or reality of the situation.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

The people in power in government in New Jersey don't seem to care. I saw the mayor of the city in which this is taking place bitch that he was tired of hearing about putting widows out of their homes.

WTF?!? 

Maybe if he weren't helping that happen he wouldn't be hearing about it.
Maybe he's tired of it, how does he think the people who are about to be forced out and have their homes destroyed feel?

It would be a crying shame if someone working with heavy equipment near his house would accidentally lose control of a bulldozer and level HIS house.

Maybe then he'd know how it felt and wouldn't be so tired about talking about it!


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

NCC1701-A said:


> Our government is full of conspiracy, everyone just chooses to ignore the facts or reality of the situation.


Either that or they're self-serving, inept, and greedy, also very well documented in history. 

What bothers me is the how open the government is getting about screwing folks, and the smirking contempt and condescension they openly reveal when called on it.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Your right about that! At least in the past public officials on the take had the common courtesy to pretend to not be openly screwing us.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

NCC1701-A said:


> ...There was a whole lot more to the Mcveigh plot then anyone, even the government would admit to.
> 
> And you may not believe in conspiracy, but in all reality a conspiracy is just a plot to gain control and power. And history is full of plots and conspiracy.
> 
> Our government is full of conspiracy, everyone just chooses to ignore the facts or reality of the situation.


It's true, even paranoids have enemies.

But when you write to your Senators and Representatives concerning this issue, please keep the tone reasonable and try not to rant. And remember, it's spelled EMINENT domain. We don't want our lawmakers to think we're a bunch of illiterate yokels, do we?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Interesting that you mention the McVeigh case. One of my law professors was, at the time, at the University of Oklahoma, and was appointed to be on Terry Nichols' defense team. He gave a facinating presentation about how the FBI and the federal courts stonewalled their attempts to uncover any other co-conspirators. Apparantly there were quite a few...


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

You guys crack me up! Hand wringing doesn't get the job done. Citizens demanding accountabilty from the Government will. Well, at least on the state level... You guys are ignoring the fact that some states have laws that would not allow a land grab of this nature and it is not the federal Government's business, nor the supreme courts, to interfere. The ruling by the court does reinforce the notion that states can enact laws to block corporations from taking peoples land. Conneticut isn't one of them.
Lastly, this week NASCAR annouced plans to build an 80,000 seat racetrack about 5 miles from my house. Instead of rolling over, I plan to fight this till the bitter end. Already called my state Senator and joined a citizen's group to mount an opposition to the land grab. My beef? Millions of taxpayer dollars to fund a privately owned, multi-billion dollar industry. I just WISH that I only had to worry about our HOA's! 
My wife is the treasurer.....


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

F91 said:


> . I just WISH that I only had to worry about our HOA's!
> My wife is the treasurer.....


 Well the HOA I am under has been taking peoples houses away for fine equal to $450 .They have been trying to give me fines without any warnings .They are supposed to give warnings then fines .The set of rules they give are very unclear and can adapted to mean anything they want and they refuse to give a clear sets of rules to us .I know this does not equal out to the courts ruling but I live in fear of having my house taken any way .I keep my yard very nice and I don't bother anyone .I could see that if I was a problem neighbor ,why I get harassed but I am not .I stay to my self and try very hard to keep my property nice.The thing that is clear private property mean nothing whether it be some City giving your property to a developer or some HOA with very broad powers taking away your home .I once had a dream ...it was the American dream a house ,a white picket fence ...oh, wait that's against the rules of the HOA .Or so I have been told by one of the HOA board members ..but I can't find it in my set of rules!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

F91 said:


> You guys crack me up! Hand wringing doesn't get the job done. Citizens demanding accountabilty from the Government will. Well, at least on the state level... You guys are ignoring the fact that some states have laws that would not allow a land grab of this nature and it is not the federal Government's business, nor the supreme courts, to interfere. The ruling by the court does reinforce the notion that states can enact laws to block corporations from taking peoples land. Conneticut isn't one of them.
> Lastly, this week NASCAR annouced plans to build an 80,000 seat racetrack about 5 miles from my house. Instead of rolling over, I plan to fight this till the bitter end. Already called my state Senator and joined a citizen's group to mount an opposition to the land grab. My beef? Millions of taxpayer dollars to fund a privately owned, multi-billion dollar industry. I just WISH that I only had to worry about our HOA's!
> My wife is the treasurer.....


^^^Strangely enough, you seem to agree with most of us, yet some of your details just aren't correct.



F91 said:


> You guys crack me up! Hand wringing doesn't get the job done. Citizens demanding accountabilty from the Government will.


No one has said hand wringing will. And often demanding accountability will not when the people you are demanding it from are being bought and sold by those creating the problem you are upset about.

I'm personally going write and call my Congressman and both Senators about this. But often acts of civil disobedience or worse are necessary for any of these politicians will take notice. The Boston Tea Party was a result of far less important an act by the British government then is being taken today by our currrent government.



F91 said:


> Citizens demanding accountabilty from the Government will. Well, at least on the state level... You guys are ignoring the fact that some states have laws that would not allow a land grab of this nature and it is not the federal Government's business, ...


No one's ignoring anything. You are just plain wrong on this issue due to your continuing obsession with States rights.

The Constitution of The United States of America forbids any government federal, state or local, from taking property from private citizens except for the public good.

You keep on harping on totally irrelevant state laws.

Were it not for the Supreme Court's allowing a fundamental redefinition of the "public good" to include _*the possibility that a property holder*_ in a certain area _*might some time in the future*_ violate civil codes based on declining income in an area _*that is not yet blighted*_ and there is some other private party willing to commit to producing more taxes for that government, they can take your property away from you!

Now the Supreme Court is saying basically that a government can take people's property _*based on the possibility*_ that they might not be able to take care of their property at some point *in the future*.

These property owners are basically being convicted as delinquent owners of property they haven't kept up before they have ever failed to keep up their property.

The Supreme Court now says that you can be punished and your property taken away for crimes you have not yet committed!!!

For violations you might commit in the future; based on declining income in your area.


Please get off the State's Rights nonsense and stop pretending the Constitution of the United States does not exist and doesn't specifically prohibit governments at every level from taking your property simply to turn it over to another private enterprise or citizen.

That explicit prohibition does exist and State's rights have nothing to do with what has caused this intolerable ruling.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

You know, I almost post this topic myself the other day but ultimately decided against it. For the reason we're seeing now. I think we are quickly drifting into a "I'm right your wrong" argument that won't really go anywhere constructive.

The founding fathers wrote these documents to codify the protection of the rights of the citizens and to limit what the Federal government can do. Everything else is left to the States.

*F91* is correct that (in the absense of Federal protection) it is now up to the States to protect it's citizens on this issue. Such changes shouldn't be necessary at either level but that is not the reality (sadly) of the way things work today. So until we can elect politicians that care about the citizen and not deep pocket special interests we simply can not ignore the need to protect ourselves at whatever level we can. That is step one.

Hope I made sense on all that.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Chuck, Time will tell. We can agree to disagree. Obsessive, come on! Obsessive is denying all things that point to one conclusion and reaching another.You would be better served to accept that it is a good thing that the Supreme Court WILL NOT overturn a states Law regarding property rights. That means you are able to craft state Laws that STRENGTHEN property rights and the Supreme Court won't overturn them.The people of Conneticut, and hopefully the rest of the country can move towards stronger property rights for private citizens and what better lightning rod than this particular ruling?
I think it sucks that these people are getting the shaft, you need to trust me on that. The issue is -What are we going to do about it? 
Ideally, You would think that the Federal Government protects it's citizens. I would also assume that no one wants the Supreme court to legislate. But, as 4madmen says, this is the reality that we live in today.
Obssesive? Women and food my friend, women and food.In that order.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> ... I've heard various reporters take about how the 5th ammendment GIVES the government the right to effectively take your property under certain conditions. That kind of comment really gets under my skin. The takings clause, in fact, restricts the government. Sheesh, how ignorant can they be?
> 
> The takings clause states that the government can not take your property unless it's 1) for "public use" -- road, fire station, police stationc, etc. and 2) you are justly compensated. Now I would argue that in practice the just compensation part was not being held to even prior to the ruling and that emminent domain abuses we're equally rampant. However at this point there is effectively nothing a citizen can do to stop it short of electing state officials that really care about individualism and the right to one's own property. Because you've just lost it at the federal level.
> 
> ...


This is my main point ^^^. You made it perhaps more eloquently then I did.

The Supreme Court cannot explain how it's allowing the confiscation of property from one private citizen in order to sell it to another private citizen for one simple reason - there is no excuse.

There is no way this can be defined as in the public good.
It does much the opposite in that many like myself are loosing all faith in the assertion that we are living in a Democracy.

This country is starting to more and more resemble the society seen in "RollerBall" every day.

No body really owns property(or even their own spouses in the case of the movie) wealthy corporations can take whatever the hell they please from you at any moment.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

No one owns property in this country anyway. Next time your property taxes are due, don't pay them, see what happens.
Oh, and we live in a represenative Republic*, so you are right, in a way.

* Wording and exact phrases become very important when it's nut cuttin' time.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Luckily I live in the land of Huey Long.

We don't do property taxes here.


Or to be more precise at least you get a free pass on the first $75,000 of assessed value to your house. And houses are WAY underassessed here.


----------



## Trekfreak (Mar 26, 2005)

I'm telling you guys right now that our government is screwed up, royally!
Truthfully if Hillary Clinton does run for president, you better believe I'll be the first one on line to vote Hillary in. Because really if Cheney gets the oval office, I'm moving to Canada!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

*F91*, I disagree. The pill of property taxes is alot easier to swallow than the ownership of property at the sufferage of the government. If I choose to not pay my property taxes that's a personal decision (with consequences to be sure). What we're discussing here takes my decision out of it completely. So I personally don't consider having to pay property taxes equating to non-ownership.

And yes, this is NOT a Democracy. Democracies are a very dangerous form of government. That's why the Founding Fathers went to such great lengths to protect against that sort of thing. But then what they established is pretty much ignored these days.

People need to wake up to what's going on and do something about it. It's not too late yet but, in another 20 years and I just don't know. No society based on individual rights ever survived the loss of private ownership. I see a bad moon rising.


----------



## NCC1701-A (Apr 19, 2005)

Trekfreak said:


> I'm telling you guys right now that our government is screwed up, royally!
> Truthfully if Hillary Clinton does run for president, you better believe I'll be the first one on line to vote Hillary in. Because really if Cheney gets the oval office, I'm moving to Canada!


Thats one of the sickest things I have ever heard of, now granted I am a moderate conservative. However, I would vote for Bob Graham of Florida before I would elect anyone from the Clinton office. Not to mention that Hillary was one of the attornies that went after Nixon for her own self serving ideals, not the better of government, but her own plot to make a name for herself.

That woman would open this country and sell it off to the highest bidder long before a republican could. And seeing as how liberals today are more about socialism then democracy that nails it for me all together.

Clinton admitted to the fact that he based his politics on the Kennedy admin, as also to the fact of visiting Russia on numerous occasion to see how there past, present and future idea of government would work. Socialism DOES NOT work, and one thing that I am apawled at is the fact that liberals want to spend every possible penny on programs that have proven not to work.

You keep forgetting that Government is big business and just like GM or GE or other major companies, it has to be run like a business. We the people are to blame when we allow big business to dictact our form of government, as to the lawyers nudging themselves into everything they can. Now the argument can be made from BOTH sides about the current state of the government, I would have to say that in the aspect of my personal interests, voting for the right makes more sense then the left. And I have voted for Democrates in the past and will again. When it comes right down to it though people just do not do the research they should to learn all the facts. Don't just watch TV because it's all propoganda anyway, read both sides of the issue not someones opinion, but the cold hard truth about the issue at hand. Then make a decision based on your research, not what you know, or hear. Knowledge is power, that has been proven time and time again.

I did vote for Bush, I admit it, but I voted based on the fact that he IS smart and has a good business background. Now you may not entertain his form of politics or ideas, thats fine we are all entitled to our opinion, but in reality, Bush based part of his politics on the Reagan admin, and while most or part of you people may not except this, Reagan did do a good job of running this country, no matter how you look at it. And yes only time and history will tell the true facts about any president in office. In my OPINION though Reagan gave and took, took and gave. Every admin is going to have political issues, but when it comes right down to it, on average some of the worst policies have come from democratic presidents, and don't be fooled by the superficiallity of what you see, IF any one has ever done some real diggin into the Clinton admin, most of you would probably drop a load big time.

Everyone needs to remember that if you want a president that can get the job done. Vote based on experience, not because he or she is a lawyer or business man. Lawyers know how to bend the law, business men know how to cheat the system, the green are about a better tomorrow. Vote based on research, and if you don't like the way something is being done, you what, you get off your a** get a petition together get people to sign it and take it to the governemt, it's worked before, and they know if they get enought people angry at them, they will wise until the next issues comes.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

"You keep forgetting that Government is big business and just like GM or GE or other major companies, it has to be run like a business."

Government is neither a business nor should it be run like one.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I agree...government is government, if you want to use a corporate comparison, it would be more like a non-profit.

Also, Bush is a lousy businessman, every venture he was involved with had problems.

If I had knonw that we were going to go off this way, I would have mentioned that I'm a JD/MBA student... lol


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> "You keep forgetting that Government is big business and just like GM or GE or other major companies, it has to be run like a business."
> 
> Government is neither a business nor should it be run like one.


Why not? If government (at any level) was run more like a business things might work better. If a business operated like the government they would 1) go out of business and 2) wind up in jail.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Why not? If government (at any level) was run more like a business things might work better. If a business operated like the government they would 1) go out of business and 2) wind up in jail.


I have to ask, how is government a business? I didn't claim it was. It's up to the people who feel that way to show that it is so. But I'll touch on a few of the differences nonetheless.

Businesses for one thing can go out of business and there is no liability(assuming they don't go out of business due to criminal activity) for those who own a piece of it other then their shares in that company.

If government is a business who owns it?
Who are it's stockholders?
Who are it's customers?

Businesses are designed to build alliances with the most powerful customers and suppliers.

Businesses are designed for one thing in mind above all else - to turn a profit.

Governments like ours are *supposed to be* designed to serve the commonly expressed interests of the majority without crushing and abusing the minority.

Governments must police and arbitrate the needs of conflicting groups of people, often times operating under rules that restrict it's own exercise of that power.

It's supposed to foster competition and prosperity, while at the same time preventing a handful of competitors from monopolizing their industries and destroying all their competitors.

Spending it's own money in the process.

Yes, both business and government necessarily involve large amounts of money. They both have huge organizational structures.

But what government is supposed to be doing and what business is supposed to be doing are too *vastly *different things.

One is supposed to have an aim of selfless service to the people.
At the very least, it has to protect people from one another. Businesses don't have to do any of that. Business is only expected to turn a profit any way it can without breaking the law.

Among many other things governments need to try and protect the public from competing interests. Businesses will always see these controls as unreasonable - and some of them are - but business' driving concern is simply to turn an ever increasing profit, even if it means firing Americans and then using the taxpayers' own money to outsource their jobs.

It's easier for business to look like an Einstein if you only have one ball to juggle. Whereas the various governments need to try and balance the needs of 250+million citizens plus the countless businesses they create, own and work for.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Chuck, It is not. And you did not. Your quote was... "Government is neither a business nor should it be run like one.".

So I offered the opinion that "Perhaps it should be run like one". You'll note that I did not say 'it was' or that 'it should be' a business. My main point being this...

As an ideal a business attempts to control waste and keep costs down.

And that was the whole of my point.

And while we are on the subject of do/don't-do, let me just say that constitutionally there's really an amazingly limited number of areas of operation that the Federal government was created to undertake. And when I say limited I mean I can count them on one hand. Compare that with today. If not for the failed educational system in this country we'd probably be hip deep in disgruntled citizens and well into a general uprising.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I was referring more to the original poster I was quoting then yourself.
The original quote was "You keep forgetting that Government is big business"
I've heard this quote paroted so many times since Reagan was elected it's incalcuable.

Is there waste and fraud in government? Sure. There is waste and fraud in business as well. A lot of why we hear so much about it in government is that there are laws that protect those who leak or outright testify to such government waste.

If your boss in a private corporation is wasting company money and people find out you are the person leaking the info to your superiors usually the door is not far being the butt.

Waste, abuse of position, this occures all the time.

My main point is not that government can't cut down on waste(though NEITHER party has EVER seriously attacked it, the Republican party spends just as much money on "pork-barrell" politics as the Democratic party does),

my point is the missions of government and business are radically different.

One has to referee the conflicting interests of hundreds of millions of diverse people, the other just has to turn a profit.

You are 100% right that constitutionally there were limited things the federal government was _explicitly_ created to undertake.

But then again, we are talking about a document created in an agrarian society over two centuries ago.

Though not all spelled out in the constitution what I have seen has naturally flowed from powers granted in the Constitution. Duties that were relatively simple in 1786, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce are not so simple today.

In a modern society it's just not a simple thing to protect people from hazardous chemicals, production, storage, transportation, etc for one example.

None of this could have been forseen by the Founding Fathers, but they had enough wisdom to make certain parts of the Constitution flexible enough that it's still a 100% usable document over two hundred years ago.

They did a fairly good job I would say, all things considered.
They had better foresight then any modern politician I've ever met or read about in my short life.


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

"The green are about a better tomorrow"?

I call Greens "watermelon people"... Green on the outside, Red all the way through... Ever hear a Green call for *less* government intrusion, and *more* private property rights? No matter what the problem, they run straight to the government, and stick their hands out, never mind the fact that a snail darter would have no use for a dollar if you gave it one.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Ok guys lets keep this on the friendly. We all have our opinions, we are all entitled to our opinions and I don't want to see any friendships dissolve over this issue. I'm keeping this topic open only because I am interested in it as I have over 500 acres and two houses I could loose over something like this. 

I love some of the replies (ok most of them) and applaud them.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Agreed.
How we got off the subject to the point where people are calling one another "watermelons" is beyond me.

Anybody can disagree with anyone without it having to degrade into such totally off-topic, exaggerated, characterizations.

This thread is really about the fact that we now apparently have no property rights. Any private citizen or enterprise with enough money and clout can get the government to take away your home and land and sell it to them!

Even if you don't owe one red cent of taxes. Even if you've complied with every ordinance on the books.

One of the most infuriating things about the situation is that as of now, it's been large *corporations* doing this.

*Corporations aren't even real, living, breathing citizens!*
*They don't even have the right to vote for God's sake!*

They are legal fictious entities created so that when a company is profitable it's profits can be split up and transfered to it's stockholders. However, when a corporation goes bankrupt the stockholders only stand to lose their shares.

Incorporation is a legal contrivance designed to allow profits to be siphoned away, yet still allow that company to build up tremendous debt to other people and corporations later. And when that debt is defaulted on no one has to give up their past profits/dividends.

It's a legal contrivance that allows the wealthy to profit when things are going well, yet skip out on their debts when things go south, without having to give back their past profits from dividends and past stock sales.

It's a license to steal.

Legally contrived, artifical entities _*that aren't even real, living breathing*_ _*citizens - they can't even vote - yet corporations can have the government take your property from you*_ and sell it to them!


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

Wow Chuck. DId a corporation steal your lollipop once? I think you muddy the waters with all this stuff about corporations. It's not about corporations. It's a about one single individual. An individual with enough money to develop that property so as to increase tax revenues. An individual who has the government on his side when you tell him you won't sell to him. This is not about big business, it's about private property being taken for the purpose of private development (by someone who isn't you -- but then you we're justly compensated right?).


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

Welcome to "Point/Counterpoint. Which one of you is playing Dan Akroyd? :thumbsup:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Pygar said:


> "The green are about a better tomorrow"?
> 
> I call Greens "watermelon people"... Green on the outside, Red all the way through... Ever hear a Green call for *less* government intrusion, and *more* private property rights? No matter what the problem, they run straight to the government, and stick their hands out, never mind the fact that a snail darter would have no use for a dollar if you gave it one.


Gosh, I'd sure like to see a link to all those liberal Senaters, Congressmen, and groups advocating _less_ private property rights. If thinking that it's inherently wrong for the government and/or corporations to seize homes from private citizens to make a buck makes me "red", well, let me go dig out my ol' Chairman Mao t-shirt.

Not to indulge in name calling, but in my humble opinion, anybody that proclaims the current government and/or corporations are in any way, shape, or form beneficial,positive, or sympathetic to the average middle-class american is probably either A) seriously deluded, B)Rich as hell or C)All of the above.

The difference now is the folks with money and power are just being more open and more efficent about it these days. And anybody that squawks about it is just "green", "red", "unpatriotic", "godless" or god forbid _liberal_. Either that or they just aren't smart enough to know what they see with their own eyes.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I have a feeling we're entering "Purple Drazi/Green Drazi" territory here


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

F91 said:


> Essentially, it boils down to whether the Supreme court wanted to interfere in a States rights issue AGAIN (Election 2000). Several states have built in protections against these kind of land grabs, Utah, being one I can think of currently. If your state doesn't have protections against land grabs, GASP!!! Somebody may have to put down the remote, even get OFF of the couch and get politically active, or call their Senator!What was his/her name again?
> So, when liberal Judges rule like a Conservative usually does (pro business-re:interfering in States rights issues, abortion, anti-gay iniatives) it's a bad thing?
> 
> http://www.americandaily.com/article/4626




F91 is exactly right. I'm totally against local, fed, or state governments being able to grab land from someone for private development. However, I don't want the Federal government via the US Supreme Court "galloping to our rescue" once again. If they had ruled against the land grab they would have violated the Constitution (10th Amendment, which, being an _amendment _changes EVERYTHING, even other prior amendments, before it) and would have set yet another precedent that would have further interfered with states being able to govern themselves which is the only way we'll ever have anything close to _consent of the governed_.

Once the precedent was set, there'd be little hope of changing it. Cities and states everywhere would have to meet some sort of nationalized litmus test before invoking (what should be a last resort) eminent domain. Is that any way to run your state or local government? Why should the Fed be interfering with that? 

As things stand, it was explicitely stated that states and local governments are allowed to pass more restrictive laws concerning the taking of individuals' property. This was clearly a 'leave it to the states' option. What does or does not constitute proper use of eminent domain (and opinions vary_ widely_) can be determined at the state and local levels where it should be. 

If a state government wants to go to bed with big business and the citizens don't mind their corrupt local leaders taking bribes to implement such elitist schemes then such things may happen. If, on the other hand, the state has enough people who are politically motivated to take a stand and make things change and happen at the local and state level, then things _can _be made better for them and _their _government may still have ways of obtaining land for public use if necessary.

Sitting around and wringing one's hands over whether the oligarchial US Supreme Court will reach down and bless your team is not the way I want to be involved in government. The way things stand, the matter is in the hands of the states and the people, respectively, where it should be. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Gosh, I'd sure like to see a link to all those liberal Senaters, Congressmen, and groups advocating _less_ private property rights.


Well, let's see . . . 

I think any law that, in the name of protecting the environment, restricts development or use or ownership of property is definitely taking away individual property rights. There have been plenty of politicians, left and right, implementing such and plenty of environmental groups (all of them?) advocating such.

I think any politician or group promoting the draft is taking away individual property rights if, indeed, you own yourself.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Well, let's see . . .
> 
> I think any law that, in the name of protecting the environment, restricts development or use or ownership of property is definitely taking away individual property rights. There have been plenty of politicians, left and right, implementing such and plenty of environmental groups (all of them?) advocating such.
> 
> I think any politician or group promoting the draft is taking away individual property rights if, indeed, you own yourself.


That's a reasonable looking argument,and certainly nicer than the watermelon comment, but again, it's a misleading. I've heard of plenty of times where tree hugger groups and enviromentalist stopping _construction projects_ and _land developement_. But the topic is having your house taken from you. Not your new strip mall or condo developement. And I'm not aware of any case where someone's _actual _ home was snatched away from them because of a snail darter or any other species. _And especially not so someone can make a buck_. And that's a HUGE difference.

And if it has, hey, I'm against that too.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ No, the statements I made when responding were NOT misleading. I responded to this (also quoted in the response I made):



PhilipMarlowe said:


> Gosh, I'd sure like to see a link to all those liberal Senaters, Congressmen, and groups advocating *less private property rights. *



But now that you mention it:

_Individuals _have been stopped from building houses due to environmental regulations after purchasing the property in good faith to build a house. That is depriving the person of the property for the intended use.

There have been many cases of _individuals _being deprived of the use of their land due to environmental regulations--that's as good as taking the land away. One farmer had his tractor taken away and hauled off to jail after some environmental fellow found pieces of a small rodent he thought was a kangaroo rat. 

I've read of cases where someone hasn't been allowed to build on his property where he was already residing due to environmental regulations (a few small mud puddles constitute 'wetlands' or some such nonsense).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Wow Chuck. DId a corporation steal your lollipop once? I think you muddy the waters with all this stuff about corporations. It's not about corporations. It's a about one single individual. An individual with enough money to develop that property so as to increase tax revenues. An individual who has the government on his side when you tell him you won't sell to him. This is not about big business, it's about private property being taken for the purpose of private development (by someone who isn't you -- but then you we're justly compensated right?).


Perhaps we are splitting hairs too closely here.
Whether we are talking private citizens being able to get the government to take away your property and sell it to them or private corporations, both - I believe we agree - are wrong.

On the issue of just compensation...
I believe there can be no such thing as "just compensation" if you don't want to sell your property.

Many of the people that will be the victims of this decision built a life in their homes with spouses who are no longer alive. Raised children in them who can't imagine not being able to go "home" and visit their parent(s) in the house they grew up in. People that won't be able to have land that has been in their family for generations passed on to the next generation.

Many of these people don't want to sell regardless of price. Their memories and legacy are more important to them.

These people are being forced to give up private property that is supposedly theirs simply because some developer wants it and has the help of a few politicians to take it from them.

There can be no such thing as "just compensation" in such a case.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^ Individuals have been stopped from building houses due to environmental regulations after purchasing the property in good faith to build a house. That is depriving the person of the property for the intended use.
> 
> There have been many cases of people being deprived of the use of their land due to environmental regulations--that's as good as taking the land away. One farmer had his tractor taken away and hauled off to jail after some environmental fellow found pieces of a small rodent he thought was a kangaroo rat.
> 
> I've read of cases where someone hasn't been allowed to build on his property where he was already residing due to environmental regulations (a few small mud puddles constitute 'wetlands' or some such nonsense).


That's not the same thing as kicking a family out of their house so somebody else can make a profit. It isn't really even close.

Well, allow me to re-edit too. It still isn't even close to kicking a familiy out of their house so a company or government can make a profit. It is a nice misleading non-sequitor from the original point, it's not the liberals or enviromentalist supporting snatching peoples homes from them.

We're talking about _homes_ here, not developing property. I'm still waiting for an example of somebody's _home_ being snatched from them, not a new vacation resort, or a new housing developement, because of a snail darter or other tree hugger mascot.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> That's not the same thing as kicking a family out of their house so somebody else can make a profit. It isn't really even close.


Just edited above post to point out your error in analyzing my response.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^ No, the statement I was responding to was NOT misleading. I responded to this (also quoted in the response I made):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All true.

But as the nuns used to say just before whacking me with a ruler, "two wrongs don't make a right."

None of the above makes what we are talking about right.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> All true.
> 
> But as the nuns used to say just before whacking me with a ruler, "two wrongs don't make a right."
> 
> None of the above makes what we are talking about right.


"But"??? What the devil???

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I am in total agreement with severely restricting local and state and Federal governments from confiscating private property. However, virtually no one's going to be happy if the Fed is calling the shots on just what constitutes 'public use' so I'm saying the states and local governments ought to be the ones determining it. At least there's some chance of redress at the local level by becoming politically active vs. praying to the Supreme Court beings.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

In some localities becoming politically active means paying off politicians. I'm from Louisiana so trust me I know...

I know what public use is not though.

Taking land from a private person to give it to another private person/enterprise in NOT public use. No way. No shape. No how.

Taking land from a private person to give it to another private person/enterprise by claiming that since the new use of the property will generate more taxes is not public use.

The government is not the public. That is a pretty simple legal fact. Increasing it's tax income *does not equal* an enhancement of the public good.

Taking a law-abiding citizen's property in order to increase the government's income is not a public use.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Just edited above post to point out your error in analyzing my response.


And I redited mine to point out your error in pointing out my error.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> And I redited mine to point out your error in pointing out my error.


Speaking of non-sequitor  

I plainly pointed out what I was responding to above. I was not misleading.

_You_ are the one changing the question after you asked it. If you want to post the challenge in order to get the answer you want, you'll have to manipulate the English language a little more deftly next time.

Okay, so I haven't come across any examples of poor little orphans being kicked out of their homes due to enviromental laws but, really, what's the difference? You, yourself, recognized it as being a matter of "property rights" in your challenge. Now, you are splitting hairs and citing a specific type example you are seeking (of which, I would guess, there probably are some) rather than examples of the general problem: environmental laws making property unusable and unsaleable for individuals. 

There are some cases of folks buying property as their primary residence--sinking all their money into it and told that they can't build on it. They then can't sell the land (at least not for anywhere near the price they paid) since no one is allowed to build on it. That is the government, through enviromental laws, taking someone's life savings and leaving them homeless (or at least without real estate). You tell me what the difference is. I'll tell you one: they aren't compensated for their property at all as in eminent domain cases.

In any case, as I've repeatedly stated, I'm against folks having their homes taken away except as a very last resort that is actually for vital public good (and NOT private gain). I'm also against all forms of corporate welfare such as when a sports stadium is built by the local taxpayers for the ultra rich team owners. Those situations usually involve kicking people out of their homes as well. There is, however, no need for a 'federal solution' (and I realize I'm using an oxymoron there  ). The states can manage their own affairs.

Politicians are voted into office. Politicians can be voted out of office. Get out there and politick if you want to change things.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Speaking of non-sequitor
> 
> I plainly pointed out what I was responding to above. I was not misleading.
> 
> ...


So sorry, but having the government telling you you can't build on your property like you wanted to is nowhere close to "leaving them homeless". More muddying of the waters. What the original 'watermelon" poster put forth, and that you felt compelled to support,was:



> I call Greens "watermelon people"... Green on the outside, Red all the way through... Ever hear a Green call for *less* government intrusion, and *more* private property rights? No matter what the problem, they run straight to the government, and stick their hands out, never mind the fact that a snail darter would have no use for a dollar if you gave it one.


Remember?

Now the clear implication in the context of this thread was it was the libbys and treehuggers supporting and promoting people having their _homes_ taken away because of snail darters.The thread the "watermelon" post was in was about people losing their houses. Not developing land, that's a totally different issue. I ask for example. And as I suspected, neither you nor he could provide one. Now you want switch horses and proclaim it was about property rights instead, and that's fine, feel free. But once again,anybody with eyes can see it's not about "environmental laws making property unusable and unsaleable for individuals". The thread wasn't about New Jersey "environmental laws making property unusable and unsaleable for individuals.", it was about people losing their homes.

But I still say the post I disagreed with was insulting, inflammatory, and inaccurate. Once again, it's not the liberals,"watermelons", "greens", or enviromentalist taking peoples homes for snail darters, or for profit. Like your "homeless" argument, it's totally false.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Now the clear implication in the context of this [watermelon post] was it was the libbys and treehuggers supporting and promoting people having their homes taken away because of snail darters . . .


You seem to want to make me out as not carefully following your contrived notion of exactly how the conversation should proceed. _I never read the 'watermelon' post itself _(skipped over it since it seemed a distraction). 

Threads take many different twists and turns despite your efforts to control them. Sorry, but that is just reality. 

_I responded to exactly what I said I responded to._ I'm not sure why you're unable or unwilling to accept that simple fact. I simply responded to your challenge concerning, and I quote, _'property rights'_. What's the big deal? You're twisting and turning like I'm shooting a machine gun at you. Calm down, man. 

I pointed out that environmental laws are worse than eminent domain due to the fact that the victims of those ridiculous laws are not even compensated for their property losses which may be much worse (especially after court costs) than losing one's actual home. 

Regarding the cases involving eminent domain, I'm completely against the government at any level taking away folks' homes for private sector gain. However, I'm not for chucking the Constitution and states' rights to make a national standard for determining just what is and what is not private sector gain (a standard that probably everyone would disagree with) rather than allow the states and local governments control their own destinies by making their own definitions and standards.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, thanks for clearing that up! And thanks for agreeing with me that that nobody is losing their houses for snail darters! And that not being able develope some property is _not_ the same as being homeless(as you stated mistakenly), as you pointed out later, we _must_ be precise in our language. And I agree if I or the original post I responded to had _been_ talking about "property rights",'eminent domain" and developing property, instead of homes being snatched away, your arguments would have had some relevance. Too bad you missed the watermelon post, yet still felt compelled to respond to my response, and yet you still managed to see & respond to Chuck's post before and after it. Curious that. :hat:

And that's really the end of the matter as far as I'm concerned. Like the old F-911 thread, I can see the same name calling and partisian posturing rearing it's ugly head. You righties are right about one things, the left,"greens","democrats', "watermelons", and enviromentalist are idiots. Because when the righties start slinging untruths and insults, it's always some liberal who pipes up how everybody's viewpoint is valid and everyone needs to express their opinion peacefully. Instead of calling them on their bad behavior.

"Twistin the night away......"


----------



## dmh2142 (Apr 16, 2005)

The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005
John Cornyn US Senate Website ^ | 6/27/2005 | John Cornyn


Posted on 06/27/2005 4:13:33 PM PDT by oblomov


WASHINGTON –U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee, introduced legislation Monday in response to a controversial ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development. The Cornyn legislation would prohibit such transfers of private property, without the owner’s consent, if federal funds were used, and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use. 

“It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain,” Cornyn said. “This legislation would declare Congress’s view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only ‘for public use,’ as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development.” 

The legislation would clarify government’s exercise of its power of eminent domain to be limited only for public use. ‘Public use’ shall not be construed to include economic development. This standard of protection would apply only to (1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the federal government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by state and local government through the use of federal funds. 

Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. He is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Cornyn served previously as Texas Supreme Court Justice, Texas Attorney General, and Bexar County District Judge.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> In any case, as I've repeatedly stated, I'm against folks having their homes taken away except as a very last resort that is actually for vital public good (and NOT private gain). I'm also against all forms of corporate welfare such as when a sports stadium is built by the local taxpayers for the ultra rich team owners. Those situations usually involve kicking people out of their homes as well. There is, however, no need for a 'federal solution'


Not only is there a need for it, the Constitution requires the federal government to get involved whenever a citizen's Constitutional rights are being violated by a local or state government.

I know Federal Goverment is a dirty word to some people, but arguing against an additional layer of protection against abuse by a lower goverment seems really silly.

I understand the desire that some people have to wish the federal government had no role to play in their lives.

However, anyone who wants to be able to call themselves law-abiding citizens has no choice but to recognize the fact that the federal government does exist and does have certain responsibilities it is required to fulfill.

In the real world, like it or not, it has many responsibilities.

Every State in the nation, and by extension their local governments, must abide by the Constitution of the United States.

Either directly or by prohibition against what government can do to citizens, rights and protections given to American citizens in the Constitution cannot be taken away by the States. The 5th amendment restricts the reasons that eminent domain can be used by both the Federal and State governments.

We need to stop characterizing this as a "federal vs state" issue.

It is NOT. All goverments in this country: federal, state, and local, must operate in accordance with the Constitution.

The Constitution must be followed by all citizens and goverments. 

The rights and protections that are guaranteed us under the Constitution are no less a local right and protection then your city's municipal ordinances.

State and local governments, in fact every citizen in the country, is required to act in accordance with the Constitution.

You might _wish_ that the Supreme Court and the federal government had nothing to do with enforcing the Constitution - and considering the results of this ruling perhaps in this individual case so would I.

But you can't wish away the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal government to enforce the Constitution.

It constantly amazes me that so many "states righters" for lack of a better term, fail to acknowledge the fact that the federal government has a responsiblity to enforce certain laws.

Wanting the states and local governments to have more authority is fine. But denying the existence of the federal government authority and it's responsibilities doesn't change the law at all.

Abuse of Eminent Domain is a matter for the federal government to protect. So says the Constitution of the United States of America.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Everyone I've talked to around the law school (kinda light in the summer), right or left, thinks the Supreme Court was nuts here. No matter how I stretch my brain, I can find no way to fit this decision into the 14th Amendment, which states in part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

On an interesting side note, totally off-topic from this discussion - the 27th Amendment's ratification is rather interesting. Originally proposed 2nd on the document who's 3rd-12th sections became the Bill of Rights, the first state ratified it in 1789, the final ratification necessary for it to become an amendment came in 1992. Over 200 years later...In terms of days, that's 74,003. The next longest time to successfully ratify an amendment was the 22nd, which took 1439 days.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> . . . Abuse of Eminent Domain is a matter for the federal government to protect. So says the Constitution of the United States of America.


Chuck, I think you're getting a little high from sniffing the emanations of penumbra. What the Constitution actually states defies any and all of your logic. 

As for the US Congress acting on the matter, it is already decided by the Supreme Court and, I'd be willing to bet good money, any law made on the matter not consistent with their ruling would be declared unconstitutional.  

The 14th Amendment states that there must be due process of law. The Supreme Court just decided that the Constitution places that due process with the states. I don't see a problem there. :thumbsup: 

Too bad most lawyers are raised to not care much about written law.  (Oh, and before anyone gets excited, that's not a slam on *all *lawyers. I have a very good friend who is a lawyer and he agrees with me.)


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Well, thanks for clearing that up! And thanks for agreeing with me that that nobody is losing their houses for snail darters!


As I pointed out, they're losing MORE than that AND not being compensated as they would be in eminent domain situations. (And just because no one here has found such an eviction case doesn't mean it hasn't happened.) Individuals could easily be left homeless from the expenses involved. 



> And that not being able develope some property is _not_ the same as being homeless(as you stated mistakenly),


Right. It could easily be _worse _according to the money involved in the investment and then for court costs for which they'd not be compensated under federal envioromental laws.





> . . . if I or the original post I responded to had _been_ talking about "property rights",'eminent domain" and developing property, instead of homes being snatched away, your arguments would have had some relevance.


My statements were perfectly relevant. You just refuse to (or are incapable of??) making the connection. 



> I can see the same name calling and partisian posturing rearing it's ugly head.


That's why I didn't read the watermelon post (except for your brief quote of it.) I haven't called anyone any names though you've called me a 'rightie'. I'm not. I'm a follower of the dead white males (as the Founders are so often denigrated) who wrote the Constitution, a contract with words written in stone that mean what they mean and nothing more. That puts me in conflict with the left and the right. No one likes me  



> . . . when the righties start slinging untruths and insults, it's always some liberal who pipes up how* everybody's* viewpoint is valid . . .


Well, you got me there.  You are, I suppose, much more gallant and valiant than I. I'd never stand up to defend a psychotic (for example) babbling about "green balloons in the sky on the ground". I would never consider such viewpoints as being "valid" in any shape or form. :freak:


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I am in total agreement with severely restricting local and state and Federal governments from confiscating private property. However, virtually no one's going to be happy if the Fed is calling the shots on just what constitutes 'public use' so I'm saying the states and local governments ought to be the ones determining it. At least there's some chance of redress at the local level by becoming politically active vs. praying to the Supreme Court beings.


Yeah, give it to the states, they do such a good job paving roads. And running the DMV. You don't need any federal protection to keep anybody from snatching your house, just trust your state to do the right thing.

'Less you live in Jersey.

And this isn't a specific jab at you, Perfesser,just a general observation but I'm really sick of the sacredness of the Constitution and previous government rulings being used selectively. I love how the current in power party has told us for decades you can't change gun laws because of the Constitution,_despite_ the fact that the guys two hundred years ago had no way of predicting our current situation. Yet in the same breath they'll proclaim we must change Social Security _because_ the guys that drafted the Social Security act had no way of predicting our current situation.

And yes, I'm aware there is a difference between SS and the Constitution. But still...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Well, the states provide the vast bulk of law enforcement and prosecution of crimes. Do we really want to make a Federal case of all criminal prosecutions?

I don't get the sacredness of the Federal government that so many seek to promote. At the Federal level, at the state level, at the local level, it's man doing the work. There is no difference in the essential good and bad character of man that must be kept in check. There is only the difference in the consolidation and amount of power that is wielded when something is turned over to the Federal level. It only makes common sense to keep the government as local as possible in order to give concerned citizens the greatest amount of say in the way their lives are affected by government. 

On another note, I don't get the attempt to prevent 'desecration' of the US flag. If the piece of cloth isn't 'sacred' to begin with, how can anyone descrate it? (Talk about 'symbolism over substance'!) That and all the concern over the 'Pledge (Oath) of Allegiance' (Why should I have to declare my good citizenship by repeating this mindless ritual all the time?) is all about turning government into religion. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in government.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

NOTE: Bold, italics, etc below is used by me for the purpose of emphasis only.



PerfesserCoffee said:


> Chuck, I think you're getting a little high from sniffing the emanations of penumbra. What the Constitution actually states defies any and all of your logic.
> 
> As for the US Congress acting on the matter, it is already decided by the Supreme Court and, I'd be willing to bet good money, any law made on the matter not consistent with their ruling would be declared unconstitutional.
> 
> The 14th Amendment states that there must be due process of law. The Supreme Court just decided that the Constitution places that due process with the states. I don't see a problem there. :thumbsup: Too bad most lawyers are raised to not care much about written law.  (Oh, and before anyone gets excited, that's not a slam on *all *lawyers. I have a very good friend who is a lawyer and he agrees with me.)


More then likely your friend knows full well that your points are both true *and totally unrelated* to one another. But rather then argue with you over it he has probably learned over time it's best just to agree with you on the points that are true without pointing out that your points are totally unrelated.

This is not a due process case. It is the failure to decide the legal question in accordance to the Constitution that has caused the problem!

I have about a half dozen friends who are lawyers and know a couple of elected officials who are also lawyers who think that you are making irrelevant, unrelated points. Which while true have nothing to do with one another.

A little legal knowledge miss applied can be a dangerous thing. You seem to be the only person in the country who thinks due process has anything at all to do with this case. If your friend truly agrees with you that due process is related to this case then I suppose MSNBC, CBS, CNN and every political group in the country who has weighed in on the subject officially should apparently fire their legal experts and hire your friend who agrees with you.

No one's due process was violated. 
That is NOT what is going to cause these people to lose their homes.

The failure was that a majority of the Supreme Court's justices have refused to do their Constitutional duty.

The Supreme Court is failing to protect citizens' Constitutional rights by refusing to rule on the obvious: that taking away one private citizen's property to sell it to another private citizen/enterprise is NOT an act of Eminent Domain that serves the public.

And thereby is UnConstitutional.

It serves the government getting higher taxes, it serves wealthier people being able to take land away from the less wealthy via the backing and force of government. But neither of those are a public good.

The 14th amendment has nothing to do with it!

"Too bad most lawyers are raised to not care much about written law."

I agree. The highest written law in the land is the Constitution. There are at least five lawyers who obviously do not care about written law, and they are sitting on the Supreme Court.

*So please come up with some new explanations designed to make us feel this is a good thing.*

_And please don't let it once again have something to do with your wish that the federal government/Supreme Court didn't exist. It does exist, and the Supreme Court has a positive obligation to enforce the written law of the Constitution._

*What other legal excuses can you come up with to make it sound as if it is a good thing* the Supreme Court has failed to protect our Constitutional property rights?

_*Please explain why it's so great that the Supreme Court refused to do their job and as a result people are going to have their homes taken away from them?*_


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> On another note, I don't get the attempt to prevent 'desecration' of the US flag. If the piece of cloth isn't 'sacred' to begin with, how can anyone descrate it? (Talk about 'symbolism over substance'!) That and all the concern over the 'Pledge (Oath) of Allegiance' (Why should I have to declare my good citizenship by repeating this mindless ritual all the time?) is all about turning government into religion. I'm sorry, but I don't have that much faith in government.


We're agreed there. Also, as the _Daily Show _ pointed out, apparently nobody bothered to read the US Flag Code, which states "stained and/or tattered flags should be properly disposed of, _preferably by burning"!_ Actually, they probably did read it, but hey, what's a code these days? No need to let pesky rules get in the way of political posturing.

IMHO, if you burn a flag, you're a jerk or an idiot. But not a federal criminal. I'd actually prefer our feds using their resources, on say, criminals. Or terrorist, I'm flexible. Personally, I'm not too worried about protesters. Or performance artist.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jeez, Chuck! Calm down! It's just not worth having a heart attack over. No one's going to have his home improperly taken away if he's willing (or has been willing in the past) to lobby and elect leaders in his state and local governments who will pass legislation to define what is proper regarding eminent domain siezures. The fact that it's now up to the local governments does NOT mean we're all _"DOOMED AS DOOMED CAN BE!"_ "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"  

Do you want Federal traffic enforcement? They can make a Federal case out of every traffic ticket. Maybe they can even pass another nationwide 55mph law. You'd like that, huh? 

Or maybe the Feds can decide how much water should be flushed down the toilets in Louisiana. Oh, wait, nevermind, they already do that one. 

I only mentioned the 14th amendment since the law(?) student brought it up. He seemed to think that it would cause the Fed to have to enforce the 5th Amendment at the local level. The 5th Amendment only restricts the Federal government. The Supreme Court affirmed that in this case. 

I'm not the only one in the country thinking along these lines. There were, I believe--correct me if I'm wrong--*FIVE *justices at the Supreme Court who think this as well (in this particular case--they're almost always WRONG in their decisions that usually do not allow consent of the governed).  

There are, I hope, plenty of others besides me who understand the Constitution in terms of written law versus some sort of perverted common law based on precedents of decisions made by flawed men who even go the extreme of taking into consideration the laws of other nations in determining what is Constitutional. That's why I said you were sniffing emanations of penumbra.  

BTW: let me clarify about my lawer buddy: He had the opinion on his own, stated it, and my viewpoint happened to agree with his. He is not the least bit shy about disagreeing with me and we do disagree on several matters, not least of which is the US Empire's involvement in Iraq.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I'd actually prefer our feds using their resources, on say, criminals. Or terrorist, I'm flexible. Personally, I'm not too worried about protesters. Or performance artist.


  Amen! Same with the Federal and states' 'War on Drugs'! Give 'em a ticket or a fine and keep the *violent *criminals in the prisons!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Jeez, Chuck! Calm down! It's just not worth having a heart attack over. No one's going to have his home improperly taken away if he's willing (or has been willing in the past) to lobby and elect leaders in his state and local governments who will pass legislation to define what is proper regarding eminent domain siezures. *... straw man arguments and hyperbole snipped out* ...




Actually the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was drafted specifically so it was NOT up to the political process to arbitrarily decide if property rights could be taken away based upon politicians who come and go in the legislatures year after year.

It was specifically drafted that way because Alexander Hamilton and others like him felt that property rights had to be a fundamental right that could not be taken away even by a politically elected majority.

*Alexander Hamilton and most of those who drafted the Constitution did not have the blind faith you seem to have that politicians will do the right thing.*

Alexander Hamilton argued during the drafting of the Constitution that one of the powers of 
the Supreme Judiciary had to be to enforce the Constitutional prohibition against government 
taking private property for public use was essential. He felt it was essential that the 
Constitution protect property owners from the political process and the vagaries of majority will.
To Alexander Hamilton property rights were too important to be left to the legislature and 
the political process.

Here is how one of the Justices who dissented, O'Conner, feels about it, as expressed in her dissenting opinion:

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, made applicable
to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides
that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” When 
interpreting the Constitution, we begin with the unremarkable presumption
that every word in the document has independentmeaning, “that no word was unnecessarily 
used, or needlessly
added.” Wright v. United States, 302 U. S. 583, 588 (1938). 
In keeping with that 
presumption, we have read the Fifth Amendment’s language to impose two distinct
conditions on the exercise of eminent domain: “the taking must be for a ‘public use’ and ‘
just compensation’ must be paid to the owner.” Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash., 538 U. S. 
216, 231–232 (2003). These two limitations serve to protect “the security of Property,” 
which Alexander Hamilton described to the Philadelphia Convention as one of the “great obj[
ects] of Gov[ernment].” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 302 (M. Farrand ed. 
1934). Together they ensure stable property ownership by providing safeguards against 
excessive, unpredictable, or unfair use of the government’s eminent domain power—
particularly against those owners who, for whatever reasons, may be unable to protect 
themselves in the political process against the majority’s will. While the Takings Clause 
presupposes that government can take private property without the owner’s consent, the just 
compensation requirement spreads the cost of condemnations
and thus “prevents the public from loading upon one individual more than his just share of 
the burdens
of government.” Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 325 (1893); see also 
Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960). The public use requirement, in turn, 
imposes a more basic limitation, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: 
Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public’s use, but not 
for the benefit of another private person. This requirement promotes fairness
as well as security. Cf. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning 
Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 336 (2002) (“The concepts of ‘fairness and justice’
. . . underlie the Takings Clause”). Where is the line between “public” and “private” 
property
use? We give considerable deference to legislatures’ determinations about what governmental 
activities will advantage the public. But were the political branches the
dissenting sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would 
amount to little more than hortatory fluff. An external, judicial check on how the public 
use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary if this constraint on 
government power is to retain any meaning. See Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439, 446 (
1930) (“It is well established that . . . the question [of] what is a public use is a 
judicial one”). 






*Another totally unrelated issue, false analogy, and really lame attempt to create a straw man argument I never made:* "Do you want Federal traffic enforcement? They can make a Federal case out of every traffic ticket. Maybe they can even pass another nationwide 55mph law. You'd like that, huh?" 

*Another totally unrelated issue:*"Or maybe the Feds can decide how much water should be flushed down the toilets in Louisiana. Oh, wait, nevermind, they already do that one."

*NOTICE A POINT THAT WAS NOT ONLY ADVOCATED, BUT WAS SUPPOSEDLY CONFIRMED BY A "LAWYER FRIEND" IS NOW BEING SLOUGHED OFF AS SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA:* 

"I only mentioned the 14th amendment since the law(?) student brought it up. He seemed to think that it would cause the Fed to have to enforce the 5th Amendment at the local level."


"The 5th Amendment only restricts the Federal government. The Supreme Court affirmed that in this case. "

*^^^FLAT OUT, PLAIN OLD-FASHIONED WRONG!!!!*




PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'm not the only one in the country thinking along these lines. There were, I believe--correct me if I'm wrong--FIVE justices at the Supreme Court who think this as well.


I don't think so. You're all over the place. I defy anyone to figure out what you are thinking! That is, beyond the idea that you can't stand the federal government; yet somehow still have an undying faith that elected politicians will always do the right thing - so we therefore have nothing to worry about.

Your faith in politicians is astounding!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Here is a key point from O'Conner's opinion that was quoted above:

Where is the line between “public” and “private” 
property use? We give considerable deference to legislatures’ determinations about what governmental 
activities will advantage the public. But were the political branches the
dissenting sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would 
amount to little more than hortatory fluff. An external, judicial check on how the public 
use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary if this constraint on 
government power is to retain any meaning. See Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439, 446 (
1930) (“It is well established that . . . the question [of] what is a public use is a 
judicial one”).

Elsewhere she develops the issue of the distinction between public and private use. *More importantly, she points out what allowing the Conneticut locality decide the issue they way they did does to the Constitution, specifically if you accept that taking private property away from a citizen to give it to another private citizens can be construed as a "public use", then the term "public use" becomes meaningless:*

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:


 "An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority . . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." _Calder _v. _Bull_, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted). 
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. 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 upgraded—_i.e._, given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. 

To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

<<< Endquote


In other words, if Conneticut's interpretation of "public use" is to be accepted, *the prohibition against taking property away from citizens only for the public good looses all meaning.*

*It means that a prohibition specifically written into the Constitution has now been made useless and meaningless. A prohibition that was added to the Constitution specifically because the founding fathers didn't trust the political process.*


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

More relavant points from O'Conner's dissent:

This case returns us for the first time in over 20 years to the hard question of when a purportedly “public purpose” taking meets the public use requirement. It presents an issue of first impression: Are economic development takings
constitutional? I would hold that they are not.
...
Yet for all the emphasis on deference, Berman and Midkiff hewed to a bedrock principle 
without which our public use jurisprudence would collapse: “A purely private taking could 
not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate 
purpose of government and would thus be void.” Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245; id., at 241 (“[T]
The Court’s cases have repeatedly stated that ‘one person’s property may not be taken for 
the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though 
compensation be paid’ ” (quoting Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Util. Corp., 300 U. S. 55, 80 
(1937))); 
...
The Court’s holdings in Berman and Midkiff were true to the principle underlying the Public 
Use Clause. In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted 
property inflicted affirmative harm on society—in Berman through blight resulting from 
extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both 
cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use 
was necessary to remedy the harm. Berman, supra, at 28–29; Midkiff, supra, at 232. 
Thus a public purpose was realized when the harmful use was eliminated. Because each taking 
directly achieved a public benefit, it did not matter that the property was turned over to 
private use. 

*Here, in contrast, New London does not claim that Susette Kelo’s and Wilhelmina Dery’s well*
*-maintained homes are the source of any social harm. Indeed, it could not so claim without *
*adopting the absurd argument that any single-family home that might be razed to make way for *
*an apartment building, or any church that might be replaced with a retail store, or any *
*small business that might be more lucrative if it were instead part of a national franchise,*
*is inherently harmful to society and thus within the government’s power to condemn.* 

*In **moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the *
*Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use.* *It holds that the sovereign may *
*take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, *
*ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit *
*for the public—such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. *

But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental 
benefit to the public. *Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are *
*enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words *
*“for public use” do not realistically exclude any takings*, and thus do not exert any 
constraint on the eminent domain power.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Who spun you up, Chuck?  

Seriously, what you are labeling as 'straw man' arguments are illustrating the point I'm attempting to make: how far do you want the Fed to come in and control things? I think a reasonable person would see that I'm engaging in some humorous hyperbole and never intended you to specifically address them except perhaps rejoinding in an equally humorous manner.

As for what my lawyer friend was agreeing to was the immediately preceding statement I made (quoting myself): "Too bad most lawyers are raised to not care much about written law. (Oh, and before anyone gets excited, that's not a slam on all lawyers. I have a very good friend who is a lawyer and he agrees with me [on this point about lawyers not being taught to seek out the truth of written law].)"

O'Conner's statements are interesting for their illustration of her lack of understanding of just which level of government is being limited. If the SC had agreed with her in the majority, they would have set a precedent of officiating over local and state affairs regarding such siezures. While I would appreciate the fact that a person's property was being protected in such a manner, I wouldn't want the Fed to do it when the state can do it AND be responsive to what its citizens, as represented by their elected politicians (better by far than appointed for life judges, IMHO) think is right and proper in such matters. Californians may have different ideas from folks in NJ. South Carolinians may want to be more restrictive than Massachusetts. Louisiana may be so eaten up by corruption that the politicians its people have been fooled into electing want to sell LOTS of homes out from under people's feet just so Wal-Mart can dominate the world.  

I say, very calmly, as did the Supreme Court in a rare show of judicial restraint and wisdom, put the resposibility where it belongs. There's no reason the people in the states and local communities can't be as wise as or wiser than those in D.C. in making those decisions. They'll have a lot more immediate feedback and consultation with people in the area: votes that they'll need to get re-elected. Run your house as you see fit. I'll run mine as I see fit. Fair enough?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> *Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use.* *It holds that the sovereign may *
> *take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, *
> *ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit *
> *for the public—such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. *


 *IN CONNECTICUT!*


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> somehow still have an undying faith that elected politicians will always do the right thing - so we therefore have nothing to worry about.
> 
> Your faith in [elected] politicians is astounding!


Okay, Chuck, clarify: what is the alternative to *elected* politicians? 

I'll tell you this: I don't trust ANY politician with too much power and that's exactly what we get when we centralize control. I'd rather have more control locally and a combative government wherein the central government is answerable to the will of the state governments instead of the other way around.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

*This made my day!*

read this small article, it made me smile!

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> read this small article, it made me smile!
> 
> http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html


Talk about your poetic justice.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Talk about your poetic justice.


 You know it. Unfortunately I am sure the committee will deny the application.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Who spun you up, Chuck?


I'm not at all spun up. As I mentioned earlier, I often use bold and italics for emphasis in the hopes it will increase understanding.

It doesn't seem to be working. 



PerfesserCoffee said:


> Seriously, what you are labeling as 'straw man' arguments are illustrating the point I'm attempting to make: how far do you want the Fed to come in and control things?


The definition of a "straw man argument" is very simple. It occurs when someone tries to attribute an argument to someone that that person never made; then proceeds to disprove that argument - in effect the person is just arguing with themselves.

You proceeded to say things I didn't say as if I had, and then tried explain why what I didn't say was outlandish.




PerfesserCoffee said:


> how far do you want the Fed to come in and control things?


I want them to enforce the supreme source of written law in the land - the Constitution of the United States of America.



PerfesserCoffee said:


> O'Conner's statements are interesting for their illustration of her lack of understanding of just which level of government is being limited. If the SC had agreed with her in the majority, they would have set a precedent of officiating over local and state affairs regarding such siezures.


Ummm... no. There is literally over two hundred years worth of precedent already set down on this exact issue.

This 5-4 ruling(let's not act as if the dissenters are just comprised of one or two oddballs with no legal knowledge) is what flys in the face of 200 years worth of precedence.

Our founding fathers inserted this protection into the Constitution specifically so that federal state and local legislatures could not take this protection away without re-writing the Constitution.

This ruling, by making the "public use" requirement to the use of eminent domain effectively null and void has done just that -* in effect it is an illegal rewriting of the Constitution, because it makes the distinction of public use meaningless.*

If the five activist, revisionist judges wanted to change the Constitution they should have done it the legal way - convince their legislators to sponsor an amendment to the Constitution and hope that enough of the states would eventually ratify that amendment.

Among the very very many precedents already set in the last 200 years the most interesting example involved a community of farmers and a railroad company.

In this case, _Missouri Pa-cific Railway Co. v. Nebraska_, the facts were extremely similar to the current Conneticut case.

In that case, Nebraska had ordered the _Missouri Pacific Railway Company _
to turn over some of it's property near one of it's railway stations.

Why? So the farmers in that area could construct a grain elevator.
Furthermore, no one would have been thrown out of their homes.

In this case, there would have been undeniable economic benefit to the community.

Why was it denied?

Because of the fact that it was not a public use, even though the public might have benefited incidentally through more income and taxes, this grain elevator would have been built by private individuals - farmers - joining in a cooperative but nonetheless private venture. 

Just as the citizens in Conneticut are having their property taken away from them and given to Pfizer pharmaceuticals' Development company. 


The State of Nebraska was not allowed to use Eminent Domain to take the Railroad's land away in order to allow the farmers cooperative because it was a case of taking property from one private owner in order to turn it over to another private owner.

The Supreme Court, as a result, did it's duty and prevented a private owner from having it's property taken away and give to another private owner *because Nebraska was in violation of the Constitution's "public use" requirement.* Regardless of the fact that economic development and increased taxes would have resulted.



PerfesserCoffee said:


> O'Conner's statements are interesting for their illustration of her lack of understanding of just which level of government is being limited. If the SC had agreed with her in the majority, they would have set a precedent of officiating over local and state affairs regarding such siezures.


As I just showed above, so much for O'Conner's "illustration of her lack of understanding of just which level of government is being limited. 



PerfesserCoffee said:


> If the SC had agreed with her in the majority, they would have set a precedent of officiating over local and state affairs regarding such siezures.


To "*set* a precedent" means to make a decision that is new or concerning areas of the law not previously ruled on. Again, as I just showed above, so much for O'Conner setting "a precedent of officiating over local and state affairs regarding such siezures."

It's the activist five who ruled in favor of Conneticut that have set the precedent.

Here is the background info:
>>>
The public use requirement of the Takings Clause is a substantive limitation on the exercise of the eminent domain power. This Court has enforced this limitation by prohibiting governments from engaging in actions that merely transfer property from one private owner to another. In _Missouri Pa-cific Railway Co. v. Nebraska_, 164 U.S. 403 (1896), for ex-ample, a group of farmers obtained an order from the Ne-braska State Board of Transportation directing a railway company to permit the farmers to build a grain elevator at one of the railway stations. This Court held that the order amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property for private use: "The taking by a State of the private property of one person or corporation, without the owner’s consent, for the private use of another" is unconstitutional. _Id_. at 417. The Court has declared on many other occasions that takings of private property for private use are prohibited. _See, e.g_., _Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff_, 467 U.S. 229, 245 (1984) ("[a] purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no le-gitimate purpose of government and would thus be void"); _Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp_., 300 U.S. 55, 80 (1937) ("one person’s property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid"); _Hairston_, 208 U.S. at 605-06 (condemnations for private use are forbidden (collecting cases)). _See also Calder v. Bull_, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 388 (1798) ("a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. . . . is against all reason and justice").​


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

The term "activist judge" is a bunch of right-wing propaganda crap. It translates to "judge who won't go along with a neo-con reading of the law."

That said, the decision was still wrong. The Missouri Pacific case was a good example.

Sorry for the earlier Amendment confusion. I know the SC didn't talk about the 14th here, but the point of that section of the 14th was to specifically extend the 5th to the states.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Remember several pages back, when Chuck said I was "obsessive"?


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Ok before some friendships dissolve over this discussion and someone gets hurt I'm gonna end this debate. 

The best thing we can do now instead of arguing over this is to contact our local officails and let them know we are not gonna stand for this. Plain and simple. If you can't affford the stamp to send them a letter, let me know, I'll send you one.


----------

