22 total posts
I participate in another discussion forum....
...besides this one, and that one is more centrist/left-leaning (it's my town website). There has been LOTS of uproar over this decision. I haven't heard anything about any organized protests, though I don't know how much can be done about a decision that has already been made.
If and when ...
... there is a new Court appointment, we won't hear much. At that time I expect all honorable liberals will not smear the "reactionary Scalia types more suited to a Nazi court" Bush is likely to nominate. All honorable liberals will tell People for the American Way where to go when they organize their campaigns against honorable judges that know their job is to interpret the Constitution and NOT to defer to international evolving discretions, unsigned treaties, findings of rights (e.g. privacy) NOT in the Constitution, etc.
In the meantime I hope all liberals are taking Paul's advice and lobbying their state legislators to insure this doesn't happen to them.
........ that this is an equal opportunity, both sides of the aisle wackos , to be outraged.
click here to email
Not just wackos, Angeline!
This really strikes at the heart of the American dream, when they can seize your home and turn it over to someone else to build a bigger one that'll net more taxes!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
(NT) OK Duckman, I already addressed this, but I'm outraged.
you're outraged. Still waiting for your comrades in the mainstream media to do the same daily assaults on this issue like they did with the Patriot Act
But property rights as we know them do not exist in Canada
So were you outraged before?
Confusion all around.......
...which of the members of the Supreme Court voted in
the affirmative, and what is their political affiliation?
Like Stevens, Sauter, Breyer, and Ginsberg, and joined by
centrist Kennedy, so why would liberals be the ones to
make a lot of noise about this, if, in fact, it were to
be political noise.
I haven't read the details of the case, but I come away
with an opinion that the appeal was to overturn lower
court rulings, which the Supreme Court determined not to
do. Which, in simple terms, said that this was a local
matter, not a Federal/Constitutional matter, and should
be resolved at the local (State) level. Isn't that
what a lot of people talk about. Keep the Feds out of
State affairs. The Supreme Court didn't establish any
new law here, nor did they 'amend or modify' a lower
court ruling, they only came down on one side of an
Guess it's time we pay atttention to whom we elect to
State Government, upon whom we depend to enact/modify
local laws that we can agree with, and pay attention
to the individuals we elect to local judgeships. It's
these 'local yokels' who cause us stress and distress
more often than the ones we send to Wash DC.
(NT) Well said!!!
Still, by leaving it to the states
it was saying in effect that rights of locals, which normally extended only to necessary purchases for schools, roads, and so forth, also included purchases for other things for economic reasons. If a mall wants to expand, then they can.
Only if local laws allow..........
Local lawmakers elected by local population, and if
disputed, heard in local courts by locally elected judges.
It is my understanding ...
... that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the PROTECTIONS of the Constitution to the residents of each state. The Fifth Amendment clearly limits the confiscation of property by the Federal Government to that for legitimate public *USE*. What the Court has just done is essentially rewrite the Amendment to include anything some politician can construe as a "public benefit" to fall under use. In any case (and I may have my Amendment numbers mixed up) the 14th extends the 5th to protect the people from states and locals using eminent domain to confiscate private property except for limited purpose.
You are wrong that the court did not overturn lower court decision. SCOTUS upheld the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling in this case in favor of New London (4-3 split decision) with a 5-4 split decision.
I think perhaps the homes of Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens and Breyer could be worth more in tax revenues to the cities or states they are in if they are all converted to shopping malls. Let's start there and see how they feel
Here's a little bit of summation/background on the CT case: http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/
Ironic, most of the residents of this area of New London welcomed the revival of legitimate industry to their town accompanied by some sprucing up of downtown. However they are now rewarded by having their homes stolen from them. Although the article describes the area as one of "richness and vibrancy", that's a bit of poetic license IMO. It's your typical smaller town type region of older homes in various states of repair, etc. However "blight" is most definitely NOT a word to describe the area either. I've watched the July 4th fireworks shows from the rooftops of some of those homes friends have rented in years past, so I'm familiar with the area. It's not a place to leave your car unlocked on the street or walk alone at night if you can avoid it, but it's also not an area where you are likely to have the car stolen or get accosted if you do.
Ive pondered whether or not blighted areas
should be targets for acquisition by the city. But if so, "blight" should be clearly defined
I agree as well ...
... I don't like this type of nebulous "out" (reminds me of the recent truce in the Senate over filibusters that could be broken under "extraordinary circumstances" ...). Oddly enough most blighted areas contain a high concentration of public housing projects that run down the neighborhood.
Which reminds me, New London has a nice sized project and the police station across the street from the publically owned pier and real close to the area in question. Sounds like a BETTER target for redevelopment and leave the family homes alone.
The best way to destroy housing is to have the government
take it over. We tend to assume that government will do what's 'right'. Even if they knew what that is, what makes us think that a bunch of civil servants will do it?
As I said, Evie,
...I hadn't read the details, only "my take" based upon
the screaches and hollars that followed.
I guess the initiating thread ...
... was dealing with the fact that we've heard rumblings of complaint from some liberals, and yet there is an absence of denunciation of the extremist, activist judges that handed down such a horrendous decision.
Come time to nominate a justice along the lines of those that brilliantly dissented (with which the liberals seem to roundly agree), we will be treated with obstructionism and character assault led by People for the American Way the likes of which will make '04 and '05 seem like child's play.
I'm kinda hoping the developer that wants to put a hotel on Judge Souter's property in NH is successful
Perhaps this is considered the limiting factor?
The Fifth Amendment clearly limits the confiscation of property by the Federal Government to that for legitimate public *USE*.
Perhaps the Court decided that restriction only applied to the federal government and it was up to local/state people and governments to decide their own restrictions?
click here to email email@example.com
But 14th Amendment extends ...
... the protections of the other Amendments to the States as well. And specifically:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
What the Five Supremes essentially did was rewrite the Constitution which is steps beyond the equally bad practice of divining rights never even written into the Constitution.
but each state can set the law for property confistication?
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And what we've seem to be seeing is the right of each state to set it's standards for due process regarding taking land for 'public good'.
Indeed, it would seem if the federal doesn't address it, and the state chose not to address it, then even a county or city government could make it's own regulations within it's jurisdiction.
I still think it stinks, but it seems the court is just saying that the prohibition on what the federal government can do in this area doesn't prohibit the states (and possibly lower) governments from making their own rules.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org