High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property


PDA






Pages : [1] 2 3

Nazirite
June 23, 2005, 11:50 AM
I know this isn’t gun related but it could have a tremendous impact on us all

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

If you enjoyed reading about "High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
roo_ster
June 23, 2005, 12:00 PM
More from the black-robed tyrants.

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 12:02 PM
This is really sad. :( And bad. :fire:

Vitamin G
June 23, 2005, 12:03 PM
Its been going on unchallenged in Pittsburgh for years.

I can't wait until seizing all the state of the art perfected polymer, brass, iron, and wood becomes "developmentally profitable"

:uhoh:

Telperion
June 23, 2005, 12:03 PM
Majority was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Dissenting was O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

Another straw on the camel's back. Can hardly wait to see what some revenue-mad town is going to do with this. :rolleyes:

rick_reno
June 23, 2005, 12:03 PM
I believed the Constitution was clear on this - I guess you learn something new everyday.

petrel800
June 23, 2005, 12:04 PM
If private property rights are no longer protected than there is no longer any need for government.

hillbilly
June 23, 2005, 12:05 PM
This is the type of thing that has caused some uppity peasants to do rash things in the past.

hillbilly

Daniel T
June 23, 2005, 12:08 PM
Just wait for the Trans-Texas corridor. We'll see how rash things get.

Molon Labe
June 23, 2005, 12:09 PM
This is why we're armed. So why fret?

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 12:19 PM
:fire: I guess its time to start sharpening the tines on my pitchfork and soaking the torches in oil. If private property rights are no longer protected than there is no longer any need for government. Yeppers, at least not the one we've got now. IT is no longer the servant of the people, nor does it protect their rights and liberties.

Chipperman
June 23, 2005, 12:26 PM
This is very disturbing

hillbilly
June 23, 2005, 12:27 PM
This situation looks like it is different from anything else I've seen.

It is very, very, very unlikely for Jo Schmo average public guy to get upset over vague, wispy concepts like Freedom of Speech, or social security, or even the Second Amendment.

I mean Jo Schmo probably went most of the way to an American public school, and isn't sure what the Second Amendment is all about, anyway, because it's like is some old document or something.

But this is different.

Even Jo Schmo, average public guy can and will understand that even though he's paying for his house, the government says it can come in, kick him out of his house, bulldoze it, and put up a new shopping mall.

Even Jo Schmo will see some sort of fundamental problem with this state of affairs.

This hits Jo Schmo average literally where he lives, because it doesn't allow him to keep living where he lives.

hillbilly

fish2xs
June 23, 2005, 12:29 PM
does anyone have a link to the opinions for this ruling?

this will be a must-read!

thanks!

Cacique500
June 23, 2005, 12:39 PM
I guess its time to start sharpening the tines on my pitchfork and soaking the torches in oil.
+1

Unbelievable :banghead:

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


We'll just have to see how they define 'just compensation'...

Augustwest
June 23, 2005, 12:43 PM
Link to the opinions (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html)

Sawdust
June 23, 2005, 12:43 PM
This is *really* bad... :banghead: :fire:

Sawdust

duckslayer
June 23, 2005, 12:46 PM
If private property rights are no longer protected than there is no longer any need for government.

Agreed. I am experiencing the loss of my property rights, in the fact that I was ordered by my city to stop constructing my storage shed since I didn't get their permission first, even though I already had an existing shed there that was destroyed by a storm. Cities are worthless. The only thing I get for being annexed by them is that I get to pay them money every year (property tax) and I get to beg their permission to do anything on my own land (building permit).

If you corner a scared dog into a small enough space, he eventually becomes violently defensive. I know my back is against the wall and space is getting pretty tight.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 12:49 PM
We'll just have to see how they define 'just compensation'... The Constitution says only that property taken for public use requires just compensation. This property is being taken for private use. :uhoh:

I jest, of course, but that line of thinking wouldn't surprise me. :(

TarpleyG
June 23, 2005, 12:49 PM
Man, this takes Eminent Domain to a whole other level. I think the gubbmint is getting a little too big for its britches.

Greg

boofus
June 23, 2005, 12:50 PM
Things are getting a bit less awkward now aren't they? [/claire wolfe]

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 12:51 PM
Things are getting a less awkward now aren't they? Without question.

BryanP
June 23, 2005, 12:55 PM
The Constitution says only that property taken for public use requires just compensation. This property is being taken for private use.

The justification is that the increased tax revenue constitutes the public use. It used to be you just tried to guess where they may want to build a road and not buy a house there. This takes it to an entirely new level.

Old Dog
June 23, 2005, 12:58 PM
Can you believe this?
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community ...
Of course, we all agree with that, right? Never any corruption or stupidity within local governments ...

critter
June 23, 2005, 01:01 PM
Scares the total crap outta me! All of us have seen little pi$$ant local government 'officials' who are feeling the power they suddenly have run roughshod over folks just because they can. Now they can and the citizenery have no recourse up the legal ladder! Nobody's property is safe any more!

Brett Bellmore
June 23, 2005, 01:04 PM
In the mean time, remember how, right after the Raich decision, the feds said prosecution wouldn't be a priority? They lied (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/health/medical_marijuana).

Apparently they just didn't want the cancer patients to go to ground while the swat teams were suiting up.

That awkward stage is definately over. :cuss:

fish2xs
June 23, 2005, 01:05 PM
augustwest - thanks!!

dasmi
June 23, 2005, 01:08 PM
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
More of us must be like this man. I wonder what would happen if an entire neighborhood slated for destruction stood on their porches and gave the finger to the wrecking crews?
Well, I know what would happen. Eventually the police would come, and forcibly remove them. But not before it became a ????storm in the media.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 01:11 PM
BryanP,

My point was that since this is for private use, does it require just compensation? But I was saying that tongue in cheek. I understand the reasoning here, although I don't agree with it.

longeyes
June 23, 2005, 01:15 PM
Educational: I didn't know the Bill of Rights was all about "community rights." Thanks to the Jackass Five now I know.

It is interesting to see the Neo-Comms on the Court side with the Developers. What they have in common is the destruction of individual property rights, of course, for "the public good"--even when, oddly, it's not really public at all in any rational sense. What it comes down to is the unmasking of both tyrannical Left and tyrannical Corporate as agents of Consolidated Power.

Bad day for America.

Nick1911
June 23, 2005, 01:16 PM
Wow

The future of this country looks more and more drab on a daily basis. :(

Edit: Spelling

fish2xs
June 23, 2005, 01:18 PM
King George III must be laughing his ass off now....

dasmi
June 23, 2005, 01:18 PM
Educational: I didn't know the Bill of Rights was all about "community rights."
Didn't you know? We are moving towards socialism. The community is the focus now, not the rights of the individual.
"...it takes a village..."

R.H. Lee
June 23, 2005, 01:19 PM
The corporate/government partnership. Fits together like a hand in a glove.

Bubbles
June 23, 2005, 01:20 PM
No wonder the anti's want to ban .50 BMG... it's so the people can't take out bulldozers. :fire:

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 01:23 PM
Contact your Congressman, tell them to stop wasting time on flag burning, gay marriage and all the other dren they find so important. Address this issue, NOW, with a Constitutional Amendment barring this kind of abuse of power.

House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

MasterPiece Arms.com
June 23, 2005, 01:24 PM
There's so much tyranny like this, just in the last few weeks ("patriot" act renewal, medical marijuana raids, repeal of 1st amendment to ban flag/cloth burning) that I'm going to try not to add too much 87 octane to the now fully legalized theft of private property to give to Home Depot.

Let's calm down and look at something here. While this is obviously a horrid ruling, a perversion of the english language by redefining "public use," and grossly unconstitutional, I have some bad news. This is another case where the vagueness of the constitution comes back to bite us hard. I don't like it, and yes, it's an expansion of the meaning of the legal term "public use," but one could see how the black robed tyrants could reason that A. the "public" uses the new Home Depot/Wal Mart/shopping mall etc, and B. the "public" uses the sales tax revenue that local governments crave as if it's straight opium.

Why am I pointing this out? Because this ruling is nowhere NEAR as bad as the out and out perversion of the interstate commerce clause that started with F.D.R. who the media and government schools treats like a sort of super christ. The in your face total rewrite of the meaning of the english phrase "interstate commerce" to create the federal tyranny that is currently strapped to our backs, is 10,000 times worse than today's ruling. Every time I read how federal "judges" use the interstate commerce clause to justify EVERY POWER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD POSSIBLY WANT OR IMAGINE, it makes me want to become an instant alcoholic.

Remember, the supreme court made up new and bogus legal arguments in their quest to legalize abortion on demand decades ago. Isn't it ironic how the federal corporation goes out of it's way to assume that every human on the continent is a 14th amendment U.S. citizen EXCEPT those who happen to be living inside their mothers for a few months?

I'd say we ought to use our outrage sparingly so as to not blow it all on the mouse of bad rulings, when the godzilla X 10 of bad rulings (interstate commerce clause perversions) is not even generally known thanks to government schools.

SteveS
June 23, 2005, 01:25 PM
The Constitution says only that property taken for public use requires just compensation. This property is being taken for private use.

In MI, they tried this and were able to convince the State Sup. Ct. that giving land to a private company would generate jobs and tax revenue. Fortunately, the case was overtunred, IIRC, last year when the court said it was not proper to take land and give it to a private company. Hopefully, MI will not adopt the new standard.

We can complain about the stupid court decisions all day long, but when are we going to hold accountable the people in office that take the land in the first place.

I'd say we ought to use our outrage sparingly so as to not blow it all on the mouse of bad rulings, when the godzilla X 10 of bad rulings (interstate commerce clause perversions) is not even generally known thanks to government schools.

I agree, but are you suggesting that public schools are deliberately not teaching the history of the commerce clause? Don't you think that is a little advanced for most high school students? BTW, I studied the commerce clause in my government run public college.

hillbilly
June 23, 2005, 01:33 PM
Here is a sure sign of the Apocalypse.

Folks at both FreeRepublic and DU are raging mad over this. Some are making similar comments about a certain kind of reaction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3928133


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428902/posts


hillbilly

Nazirite
June 23, 2005, 01:38 PM
Check out the poll over at cnn’s web-page. I'm surprised at how many said never.

Open Carry
June 23, 2005, 01:38 PM
I'd say we ought to use our outrage sparingly so as to not blow it all on the mouse of bad rulings

The straw that breaks the camel's back, is just a straw. The biggest and smallest work together just the same.

dolanp
June 23, 2005, 01:39 PM
Hopefully, MI will not adopt the new standard.

It's the supreme law of the land now. All the pro-seizure party has to do is take it to court and cite this new ruling.

hillbilly
June 23, 2005, 01:39 PM
Masterpiecearms.com, your ideas are sophisticated, but I'm afraid they miss the mark.

It doesn't matter how "good" a particular piece of language is or isn't.

Everything that's ever been written down or said can be easily manipulated and twisted for evil purposes.

Ever heard somebody wrangle over "what the definition of the word "is" is?"

Ever read George Orwell? Ever heard the phrase "War is Peace?" or how about 'Hate is love?"

The quality of the original language is not at issue at all here.

The only thing that is at issue is the evil set of machinations that have been put into motion by this evil ruling.

hillbilly

lunaslide
June 23, 2005, 01:46 PM
Contact your Congressman, tell them to stop wasting time on flag burning, gay marriage and all the other dren they find so important. Address this issue, NOW, with a Constitutional Amendment baring this kind of abuse of power.
Err, we already have one:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

TheEgg
June 23, 2005, 01:48 PM
Did not some of you get the memo? We lost our property rights years ago.

Do this thought experiment -- some of you probably think you own a home. Well, think again.

Let us postulate that you stop paying your taxes. What happens? Well, after a suitable time, a court orders that your home be seized. Eventually, the JBTs will show up at your door, and you will have two choices -- leave your home or be killed. You are a renter, not an owner -- the government owns your home.

This decision is just a continuation of the same thing. Now, you don't even have to do something "illegal" like stopping paying taxes -- all you have to do is be in the way of the rich and corrupt. Government wants your property, government gets it. If you resist, what happens? The JBT's show up at your door, and if you resist, you will be killed. Clean up the blood, and start putting up the strip mall -- oh and "the money has been deposited in the Swiss bank accounts, members of the city council -- thanks for doing business with Mega-Corp."

This is happening today, in Arlington, Texas just down the road. Why? Because Billionaire Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, wants a new stadium. Doesn't matter to him or the Arlington City Council, or the citizens of Arlington for that matter that people will be involuntarily put out of their homes to give Jerry Jones a new play toy. If people die, hey just the price of doing business, don't you know?

Oh and by the way? Don't expect any of those sent to your door to resign in protest rather than kill you -- they won't.

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 01:50 PM
Interestingly, it appears the the SCOTUS has taken what started as a limitation on government power and turned it into a government right that is unresrticted.

Could Congress pass a law to change the outcome of this case? It appears not. Their power to do so is resricted by this new Constitutional right. What would a new Constitutional amendment say? How much clearer can words be?

Rebar
June 23, 2005, 01:51 PM
Want to talk impeachment? It's time to impeach Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Simple as that.

Nick1911
June 23, 2005, 01:55 PM
Want to talk impeachment? It's time to impeach Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

+1

armoredman
June 23, 2005, 02:00 PM
Think of another, decidely firearm related twist - when anti local governments use this new ruling to presuade thier favorite corrupt construction sompany to file plans for a new minimall atop your local range...or gunshop. Public good, right? After all, this court case allowed the bulldoaing of family owned businesses, as well as private homes. New Jersey, California, stock up on what you can, as your local shop/range is about to become a minimart. There is the firearm related twist to keep this "on topic"...though I wish it wasn't true....

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 02:00 PM
lunaslide: Various .gov's and the Supremes have proven they can not be trusted with the power of ED. Time to revoke that power. Revoke ED in its entirety.

RevDisk
June 23, 2005, 02:06 PM
Hmm. Gee, if anyone tries to seize my property, they can get it. But it's gonna cost them, scorched Earth Policy all the way. Till motor oil and salt into the ground, and dump every other nasty chemical I can find. Couple weeks after they own my land, call the EPA and every environmentalist group in this hemisphere.

lunaslide
June 23, 2005, 02:10 PM
I agree with you Sindawe, I was just trying to make the point that we already have a law on the books that is supposed to protect us from land grabs and they are ignoring it. We also already have laws on the books that protect us from gun grabs, illegal searches and seizures, infringement on free speech and press and undue process of law and they have ignored all of those also. Passing another law outlawing eminent domain won't do any good if it will be ignored as well.

What do the people do when the laws of the land are ignored by the government to the detriment of the people?

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 02:10 PM
RevDisk: Based on my limited knowledge of environmental law, you'll be the one who ends up paying for the cleanup, since you'd be the one who contaminated the land.

rick_reno
June 23, 2005, 02:14 PM
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/) has a "live vote" running on this incredible ruling, asking "Is this fair?". So far it's 97% NO, 3% YES. It's looking like the people are finally getting tired of this crap.
This is a very serious ruling, the worst I've seen from them in many years.

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 02:14 PM
lunaslide: Ahhh...gotcha.

Well, I think some fine folks in years past had some valid ideas...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 02:19 PM
What do the people do when the laws of the land are ignored by the government to the detriment of the people? [*** fingers rapping on table ***] "Hmmm... What to do? What to do?"

Waitone
June 23, 2005, 02:27 PM
Said before and I'll say it again. Joe and Martha Sixpack have a slice of the American dream even though it may be a single-wide next to an interstate right of way. Joe and Martha are happy because the single-wide is their single-wide. They willingly pay taxes because it is their single-wide. Joe and Martha may not host dinner parties because high heels don't do well in gravel driveways, but they can have Lois and Larry Lugnuts for for brats and beers in their single-side.

The idea of unaccountable black robed judges have now said it is acceptable for a tofu loving, Gucci loafered developer to get his buds in the local government to "take" Joe and Martha's single-wide is reprehensible to even the most marginal American. They may not be able to cite the 5th amendment but they do understand fairness. . . . . . and what the judges have delivered ain't fair.

Me thinks SCOTUS has just done something highly unsanitary to its messkit. This one ain't settled. :fire:

HankB
June 23, 2005, 02:31 PM
Want to talk impeachment? It's time to impeach Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.+1 again.

I wonder if any of the people immediately impacted have the intestinal fortitude of Martin Olds?

hillbilly
June 23, 2005, 02:36 PM
Waitone...exactly..........

This issue is so simple, so cut-and-dried, that anyone and everyone will get it.

That's why I think this issue is much more powerful than just about any other issue that folks have been wrangling over recently.

It doesn't matter how much people know about history or political theory or how much they have read the Federalist Papers or the US vs Miller decision or anything like that.

Concepts like "interstate commerce clause" which cause the eyes of most ordinary people to glaze over don't apply here.

What does apply is the gut-level, instinctual reaction that tells everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs, political stances, values systems, sex, race, age, or educational level, that having your house confiscated by the government and given to some corporation to be destroyed and replaced with a new strip mall is wrong, immoral, and completely unacceptable.

The complete and utter simplicity of this outrageous situation is what will make this one so powerful.

There is nothing to understand. There is no elightenment of any kind required. There is nothing "to get."

The math really is as simple as

1) Government takes away your house, regardless of whether you pay taxes or not or any other consideration.

2) Government gives your house to some corporation so they can bulldoze it and replace it with a private business.

This is one of those "firestorm" issues.

hillbilly

longeyes
June 23, 2005, 02:37 PM
"When in the course of Human Events..."

RealGun
June 23, 2005, 02:40 PM
Those voting for this ruling should be asked to retire. They would certainly be out of the running for Chief Justice. If there ever was a case for incompetence, this would be it. All I can do is ask my congresscritters to do something about it.

I am no lawyer and even I can easily reason through this case. Deferring to State and local government on property rights is nonsense. It is an open invitation to corruption, which this case appears to be, and against which no one now has any appeal beyond State levels.

I will have to read the ruling and dissents carefully. This should be fascinating.

Where does it leave us when we take no pride in our Supreme Court or any comfort or confidence in how they might rule? Yikes!

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 02:44 PM
I thought I'd wait till i talked to some people in real life before I made my gut instinct comment:

This may be the biggest decision in our lifetimes. And you're right, it's a LONG ways from over...

longeyes
June 23, 2005, 02:45 PM
We need new blood on the High Court. Everyone knows that.

I heard y'day that Bush wants Alberto Gonzalez to replace Rehnquist/O'Connor. That's the rumor. Uhboy.

Zundfolge
June 23, 2005, 02:47 PM
Thats it ... our government has officially crossed Claire Wolfe's line.


sorry ... I know such talk is verboten here on The High Road but thats just where we are now ... America is gone.

:banghead: :fire: :cuss: :(

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2005, 02:50 PM
Wow, I just read every post on this threads and guess what I found... Unanimous agreement that SCOTUS has done nasty things to the pooch. We are ALL agreed.

If your read the stories on this, one of the people who the city fathers plan to evict has had the house in her family for A CENTURY OR MORE.

Disgraceful, disgusting, and if I wore a black robe, I would absolutely start looking over my shoulder. The American People will put up with the BS issues of Gay Marriage, School Prayer, and the rest of the stupid agenda we bog our courts with. (BTW, I don't mean to offend anyone, but these are minority issues)

When Joe Sixpack (of which I am one, proud to say) sees that his HOME CAN BE TAKEN for tax advantages for the fat cat city fathers he elected, he is going to be (fill in the blank). Hopefully the city fathers will look like :what: 30 minutes after Joe gets the news.

Don't ask for whom the bell tolls ...

Matthew748
June 23, 2005, 02:50 PM
Well, it looks like the private citizen took another blow to the head. It really is a shame to see the direction our country has taken. If the government (local, state, or fed.) wants your land they will get it one way or another. At least they had to resort to some pretty underhanded tactics in the past.

dasmi
June 23, 2005, 02:52 PM
I popped over to DemocraticUnderground, and horror of horrors, they all agree as well. It looks like we have an issues that nearly all Americans can agree on. The Government has zero right to sieze anyone's property, and give it to a corporation for the "public good."

/me needs a new SHTF gun.

Rebar
June 23, 2005, 02:53 PM
Lets be clear, this isn't the "government" in general, this is our out-of-control judicial branch.

Now, how do we get the impeachment ball rolling? And can we get them out before the end of Bush's term, in case (heaven forbid) Hillary wins and makes it 1000% worse.

odysseus
June 23, 2005, 02:54 PM
I feel ill... :barf:

This is even more a clear infringment against the Constitution. Animals now have more rights for land property then we do. :eek: Try seizing a wetland...

Augustwest
June 23, 2005, 02:57 PM
Lets be clear, this isn't the "government" in general, this is our out-of-control judicial branch.

:fire: And still people find excuses for a corrupt and broken system...

Molon Labe
June 23, 2005, 02:58 PM
Rest assured, people will defend their homes from tyranny.

And quite frankly, it's about time some blood be spilled in the name of liberty. It's long overdo.

Time to read Enemies Foreign and Domestic again. I need to brush up.

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 02:58 PM
Excellent point, Odysseus!

Waitone
June 23, 2005, 02:59 PM
Would it not be interesting if Renquist were to resign in the next, oh say, 5 days. Talk about putting into stark relief the issues at stake with the upcoming SCOTUS nominations.

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 03:00 PM
And quite frankly, it's about time some blood be spilled in the name of liberty. It's long overdo. Molon, the whacko s will first be marginalized by the press -- unless they see some self interest in doing the opposite. Remember, they usually don't care who wins, as long as there is a bloody fight to report.

bamawrx
June 23, 2005, 03:05 PM
This a major opportunity. A liberal just called Rush and when asked about this issue he was dead against it. Most people have a gutt feel that this is just plain wrong, and when we all agree with the "good" to people at DU then the pipes are primed.

Time for action and the person that leads the pack will win major political hay. We could ammend the constitution to "fix" the problem. The document is overdue to some house cleaning to put a stop to the black robes.

Augustwest
June 23, 2005, 03:10 PM
I'd be surprised to see congress taking meaningful steps to reduce the scope of government power.

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 03:11 PM
I, among others, have said the straw that breaks the camel's back would not be about guns but something unexpected. Most likely property rights. Did I call this one or what... Now if it actually DOES motivate people...

Time for an important note here, folks: Don't stop your indignation with posts on the Net. Talk to people in real life. I've been on the phone, the email and printed out both the fox article and the opinions to post on store bulletin boards(I'm gonna hang a big one on the Wal Mart bulletin board!). The thugs of government are counting on our disgust ending here. Don't let it.

Cacique500
June 23, 2005, 03:12 PM
Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear: "In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Impeachment of a Supreme Court justice is not without precedent. In 1805, Samuel Chase was impeached. Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson's friend Abe Fortas was threatened with impeachment and resigned. It can happen again. It must happen again.

Contact your congresscritters...I'm going to write mine RIGHT NOW...

Beren
June 23, 2005, 03:16 PM
I'm calling mine. This is an outrage.

dasmi
June 23, 2005, 03:19 PM
I'm calling mine. This is an outrage.
Everyone, please call. Emails do not cut it. Also call the offices of the five supreme court justices who voted for this.

RealGun
June 23, 2005, 03:25 PM
This is only the beginning. There are more rulings due, possibly today, and Rehnquist is expected to announce retirement at the end of the session. Of course, there are others who are prime candidates for retirement too.

Henry Bowman
June 23, 2005, 03:32 PM
I'd be surprised to see congress taking meaningful steps to reduce the scope of government power. Except that this is almost entirely a local .gov issue not a fed.gov issue. The feds take their share of land by grab, but rarely to give it directly to a private developer. The feds never give away anything they have taken.

Master Blaster
June 23, 2005, 03:37 PM
This is nothing new, government has been using emminant domain to build new malls and stadiums for private interests for years. The only question before was who runs out of money to fight it in court first, you or the government?
And how long does it take before the gov offers you enough money and enough aggravation to make easier for you to move than fight????

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2005, 03:41 PM
I have just e-mailed my Representative urging impeachment of the five Justices, and or withholding finance from the Court. (Remember the HOUSE APPROVES ALL FINANCES). I've also copied almost everyone in my address book.

Let's get this done...

Letter:

Dear Representative Akin,

I was horrified to hear of the Supreme Court's decision today regarding the Connecticut case of Eminent Domain. An excerpt from the AP story:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue."

This is a disgrace, and the most anti American decision I have seen in the shoddy history of this Court.

I urge you to seek impeachment of the Justices who were in favor of this decision. At the very least, take action to cut off the finances of the Court. No one's property will be safe due to this decision.

I'll give you a scenario. My home in O'Fallon is 11 years old. As you are aware O'Fallon has been growing, and property values have been rising. Although it isn't true, lets assume that the value of the properties in my subdivision have not been rising at the same rate as newer homes, for whatever reason. A developer could go to the City, sell them on the fact that a "newer" subdivision could generate more tax revenue, and get the City to snap up our homes under Eminent Domain, and sell them to the developer.

The abuse that this SCOTUS decision can cause could be astounding. The reaction of the populace could be as well.

I appreciate your attention,

dasmi
June 23, 2005, 03:42 PM
The abuse that this SCOTUS decision can cause could be astounding. The reaction of the populace could be as well.
Very true.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2005, 03:42 PM
BTW made senior with this...

71Commander
June 23, 2005, 03:49 PM
This may be the spark that light the fires under out butts.

As long as half of the country was against the other half of the country, the Gov't could do as it saw fit. When both side agree, tides will be a turning. :fire: :fire:

coylh
June 23, 2005, 03:54 PM
Isn't it ironic that this is taking place in New London. ;)

Hawkmoon
June 23, 2005, 03:55 PM
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As noted, this expansion of the "law" codifies the rather nebulous concept that anytime the gummint says whatever they want to see there is better than what you have there, they can claim the property under eminent domain and then turn it over to private developers.

How is "just compensation" decided? I watched that in action a few years ago. I worked a couple of blocks from a neighborhood of apartment buildings that just happened to be located near a highway interchange where the city wanted to put a business park. First, they stopped providing municipal services to the apartments. Literally -- they allowed garbage to pile up in the streets, the made certain that the police responded only in the direst emergencies -- and even then very slowly. The didn't repair the streets or the sidewalks, they didn't replace burned out street lights.

Eventually, understandably, residents eventually got tired of being treated like third-class citizens and moved out. Nobody else would move in, of course, so the apartments sat vacant. Once they were almost completely vacant, the city engaged an appraiser to come in, and (surprise!) he/they determined that because the apartments were vacant and not "marketable," the properties weren't worth anything.

I'm sure the timing was entirely coincidental.

mpthole
June 23, 2005, 03:58 PM
You know - I'm just as p.o.'ed about this as everyone else here - but you know what? After taking a quick poll around the office, the basic response was an "Oh well" and a shoulder shrug.

If the sheeple don't hear about it on the nightly news - along with a nasty editorial comment from their favorite news reader - they aren't going to do anything about it. Until it happens to them personally, they won't waste another moment on it. (I was going to say another moment thinking about it, but I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people don't think)

Mr. X
June 23, 2005, 04:03 PM
This thread couldn't help be more appropriate to this thread:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=144012

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2005, 04:04 PM
mpthole, yep, similar reaction at my office. We have to raise awareness.

Yes there are "sheeple". If you look at the American Revolution, one third of the Colonies wanted independance, one third wanted to stay with the King, and one third flat didn't care one way or another.

That has always been the way in the Nation, and probable always will be. Look at the people who didn't vote in the last national election... about a third of qualified citizens (or subjects?).

We have to defend democracy, freedom, and private property. If not us, who?

Rebar
June 23, 2005, 04:07 PM
And still people find excuses for a corrupt and broken system...
What has broken down, and has been broken for a very long time, is the system of checks and balances as applied to the judicial branch. The judicial branch was supposed to be equal to, not superior to, the executive and legislative branches. The judicial branch became elevated to the point where it became taboo to even talk about bringing it under control, mostly due to the usurpation of power by the judges, and the utter failure of the other branches to stop them.

This ruling is merely the logical conclusion of decades of liberal/left judicial activism, and comes as no suprise to those who have been paying attention. Perhaps now a serious reform and long overdue cleansing can begin.

AZRickD
June 23, 2005, 04:08 PM
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (search) said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.We've had this debate in Arizona... over a brake shop that an Ace Hardware owner wanted moved out so that he could expand. He convinced the City of Mesa to try and push out the "ugly" brake shop which had been in the same location since 1952. The brake shop owner fought and won in the Arizona Appeals court...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

But the top story in this CBS story from 2004 shows just what the cities are after. Prime property, not blighted property...

This Cleveland suburb house and several others on highly coveted property which the current owners will likely get dimes on the dollar.:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/09/26/image575293x.jpg

A person searches for good property and then decades later finds that the city wants to jump on his back and take what he has made.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
This sounds that if a city decided that "gun violence" ate into their healthcare funds too much, they could "buy up" all of the guns. Of course, since the court also won't stop the city or state from banning guns or banning new sales of guns, or banning gun shops, they could easily use this ruling to do their nasty work.

This is theft, and just as the USSC was unwilling to enforce rights protected by the 14th Amendment "pre-incorporation" in the late 19th Century, they are AWOL in protecting our rights and honoring the Constitution. This gang of five is pond scum.

Rick

Molon Labe
June 23, 2005, 04:08 PM
We could ammend the constitution to "fix" the problem.I thought we already had an amendment that addressed this issue?

Besides, another amendment wouldn't make any difference. They would just ignore it as they do the others.

Time to buy more ammo...

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 04:11 PM
Supreme Court Backs Government in Land Rights Case
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Dealing another setback to the property-rights movement, the Supreme Court today upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires building owners to pay the city a fee when they convert rental units into hotel rooms.

The owners of the San Remo Hotel said the $567,000 fee they were forced to pay violated the Constitution's guarantee that "private property (shall not) be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Three years ago, the California Supreme Court upheld the ordinance on a 4-3 decision, despite a dissent by Justice Janice Rogers Brown who called it an example of "thievery" by the government. The city said it sought to preserve rental units for low-income people and the homeless.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the hotel owners did not have the right to even challenge such fees in a federal court once they had tried and lost in the state courts.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-062005scotus_lat,0,4368299.story?coll=la-home-headlines

And it appears to have just been announced(or perhaps I just noticed it) that Rhenquist retires this coming Monday...

hkOrion
June 23, 2005, 04:12 PM
I see a few more Granby, CO's coming our way - and all they did was re-zone that guys business. Anyone know where I can get a bulldozer and some steel plates?

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 04:13 PM
This sounds that if a city decided that "gun violence" ate into their healthcare funds too much, they could "buy up" all of the guns. Of course, since the court also won't stop the city or state from banning guns or banning new sales of guns, or banning gun shops, they could easily use this ruling to do their nasty work. I have only one response to such an idea.

Come and take them!

SteveS
June 23, 2005, 04:33 PM
Lets be clear, this isn't the "government" in general, this is our out-of-control judicial branch.

I would respectfully disagree. The elected officials that grabbed the land in the first place are just as out of control as the court idiots that gave a thumbs up to their scheme.

roo_ster
June 23, 2005, 04:35 PM
Hey, our masters still let us dismember babes in the womb, burn the flag, and read simulated kiddie porn online.

What more could you possibly want?

Well, I'll admit that some folks would rather have their country back instead of the mess of pottage we got in trade. But we know they're all "patriot invective" vomiting extremeists.

Best just to grin, say, "Thanks!" and take the sack of sh-t you've been handed.

Bruce H
June 23, 2005, 04:42 PM
I don't see what the problem is. This exact senario has been a smashing success in Zimbabwe. :evil:

Flyboy
June 23, 2005, 04:44 PM
FWIW, I called both of my US Senators' offices (Inhofe and Coburn), and my Representative's office (Tom Cole) this morning. Neither of my Senators had released any statements or taken any positions as of the time I called them (indeed, their staffers didn't even know the case), but both are supposed to contact me in the near future. Rep. Cole's office, however, was a little more helpful. He was in session, but his staffer at his Norman, OK office said that he's a big supporter of private property rights, and is getting pretty sick of eminent domain abuse. She asked what I suggested he do about it, and I suggested A) a law defining "public use" pretty narrowly, or, more extreme, B) an amendment abolishing eminent domain on the grounds that the gov't just can't be trusted.

To my absolute shock, she said he might just support option B, he's so disappointed at the abuse.

She also said to mail my letter (in addition to the call, I'm drafting a letter) to the Norman office because stuff to DC still gets irradiated and takes forever to deliver, but stuff to the Norman office comes quickly and gets FAXed to DC the day it's received. I'm going to go one better and deliver it to the Norman office in person, I think. I will, of course, post the letter, and any correspondence I receive, as it becomes available.

GunGoBoom
June 23, 2005, 04:45 PM
Cuch.... the answer to your question is that no, they're (fortunately) not claiming that no compensation is due the landowners, since it's a private use. The courts wouldn't buy that (fortunately). They are in fact giving compensation, and it is arguably of a "just" amount. They are in fact claiming that this is "public" use, which is the crux of the argument. It doesn't *seem* like public use, and the landowners argued that it wasn't public, but to no avail, as the SCOTUS, with its endless imaginations, machinations, and contortions of the law and reason, has come to the conclusion that a shopping center IS public use, just as they concluded in Raich that making criminally illegal some pot prescribed by a doctor, and given away free, amounts to 'regulating interstate commerce', and just as they found in the early 70s that the Constitution contains a 'penumbra' of unwritten rights that include the *right* to use contreptives and the *right* to have an abortion. (I'm pro-choice and pro-contraceptive, but the constitution does NOT mention those things anywhere - it DOES specifically mention the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, which has been almost wholly ignored by the court).

alan
June 23, 2005, 04:47 PM
Nazerite is right, the topic is NOT gun related, however it most certainly is important, for it could, as he noted, effect all of us.

In as few words as are possible, the ultimate impact of this ruling could play out as follows. NOTHING THAT YOU "OWN" IS SAFE FROM "GOVERNMENT".

Rebar
June 23, 2005, 04:54 PM
I would respectfully disagree. The elected officials that grabbed the land in the first place are just as out of control as the court idiots that gave a thumbs up to their scheme.
True enough, but you have to expect insane and illegal behavior from elected officials. It's the courts, using the Consitution and real law that are supposed to stop them. Instead of activist judges letting them get away with clearly unconsitutional actions it because it suits their political agenda.

We've taken a gigantic step towards socialism, and we need to use up all legal means to correct it. That means impeaching these judges, overturning this ruling, and cleaning up the sewer of leftism that the judicial branch has become.

If that doesn't work, we are all in for a world of hurt.

Bubbles
June 23, 2005, 04:54 PM
the topic is NOT gun related

Don't be too sure about that...

USSC Ruling Could Shut Down Gun Dealers & Shooting Ranges (http://www.kerrycountry.org/scotus.html)

SCOTUS Ruling Opens the Door for Towns and Cities to Destroy Private Clubs, Businesses
On June 23, 2005, a divided US Supreme Court stunned most Americans when it ruled 5-4 that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision awaited by both local governments and property owners. The case under consideration was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for a private office complex re. Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for public projects such as roads or schools. As of this decision, however, cities may now destroy private residences and clubs for projects that will provide more taxes or other economic benefits.

This has to be a godsend for towns and cities that have been stymied so far in their attempts to shut-down any businesses, corporations, or private groups of which they disapprove. Private gun ranges, airfields, RV tracts, hunting preserves, fishing resources, minority religious congregations, newspapers -- all are now fair targets for seizure and closure "for the economic benefit of the people." Chicago Mayor Daley's unlawful seizure and bulldozing of Meigs Airport in 2003 is now moot since he can say he did it "to improve the local tax base." Numerous gun ranges and hunting clubs across the country can now finally be closed by NIMBY pressure on the local city council or board of selectmen. Don't like those awful ATVs buzzing every weekend? Presto! That ATV tract will certainly return more taxes as a new strip mall. Resentful of that weird religious group meeting house down the road? No problemo. Their church is now a McDonalds. Don't want a lawful gun dealer in the Peoples Workers Paradise of Cambridge, Massachusetts? I feel so much better now that it's the local Ben and Jerry's.

This ruling only reenforces the general and growing consensus that the US court system is broken and that activist judges are dismantling the country, the Constitution for most intents and purposes having been flushed. The fall-out from this inexplicible ruling will be fast, fierce, and tragic. Stand by.

athlon64
June 23, 2005, 04:55 PM
If I were a property-stealer who forced people to give up their property that had high monetary as well as emotional value invested in it, I'd be very concerned about the multiple enemies I would then have; who might be very very very angry with me and felt they had nothing left to lose. I'd never want to be in a position like that.

Waitone
June 23, 2005, 04:59 PM
If you think this issue will not morph into a gun rights issue, you are sadly deluded.

Gun range existing peacefully for the last 70 years suddenly finds itself in the middle of a raging development. County has to place an elementary school in the area and the choose a place within earshot of the range. Buffy Blissninny hears gunshots and wets her pants. She goes to Eyewitness News who sends out a truck and dish. Other owners of the new development pile on and complains to the media and county government. Developer steps in and says, "Hey, I can convert that range from $X,000 / year in taxes to Y times $X,000 per year. County commissioners (who just happen to receive campaign contributions from said developers) say "Cool", let's go get some more of that tax money. Government grinds and the gun range is now the property of the developer.

You think it won't happen? I'll predict right here and right now that the Charlotte Pistol and Rifle Club of Charlotte NC will lose its outdoor range in Waxhaw, NC in the manner I just described.

Jim Diver
June 23, 2005, 05:01 PM
I have an idea for like a "countdown clock". Let's make a web page that lists the amendments to the Const. and links to the SCOTUS rulings that gut each amendment.


Anyone know if the persons who are going to lose homes to this ruling have a page set up or email addresses?

Vernal45
June 23, 2005, 05:07 PM
police state
n.

A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.


Lets see,

Federal Agents can come in to our residence/business and look around without a warrant (sneak and peek).

A coffee can gives some officers PC to search a vehicle.

We have sobriety check points where people are herded like cattle to check papers and to fish for anyone guilty of a crime, the check point allows LEO's to get around doing their job of obtaining PC and actually investigating.

To buy cold medicine you have to give your name, address and reason. The govt will keep track of it.

If you dont comlpy with an officers orders, even if you do so without violence, some officers may use a taser on you, as compliance.

The can detain you on a vehicle stop, get a dog to sniff around your car.

Then can pull you over, pull you out of a vehicle, hold you for several hours, all because you were driving wearing a combat helmet.

Defacto Gun regristration with the 4473 (remember the DC sniper case)

Officer Safety trumps citizens safety.

Many, many more on the list, way to many to put down, but now, they can seize your property. I bet some of our more zealous LEO's are at this minute, learing and getting licensed to drive a bull dozer. One of the basic ideals of our country is property rights. Now that is gone. This ruling SHOULD be the straw that broke the camels back, but I doubt it will wake anyone up.

But hey, we are not a Police State, Not even close......Right :uhoh:

jwmoore
June 23, 2005, 05:22 PM
I haven't yet seen it posted, so here's the text of the ruling and dissents:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

BryanP
June 23, 2005, 05:26 PM
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (search) said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
We've had this debate in Arizona... over a brake shop that an Ace Hardware owner wanted moved out so that he could expand. He convinced the City of Mesa to try and push out the "ugly" brake shop which had been in the same location since 1952. The brake shop owner fought and won in the Arizona Appeals court..

Some states already have laws that specifically address this. At the end of this MSNBC story about today's ruling: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/)

Where other states stand
According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight; they are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Another three — Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts — have indicated they probably will find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional, while the remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question.

My state isn't on the list. I think I may have to do a little writing to my state reps ...

duckslayer
June 23, 2005, 05:34 PM
I called my congressman, and spoke with him. He strongly disapproves of the ruling, and I asked about impeachment of a SCOTUS judge. He said it wouldn't be impossible, but very difficult...they couldn't even impeach Clinton for all the stuff he did (my congressman was a democrat at the time). He did say he would look into it.

Everyone call your congresscritters...even if the impeachment doesn't work, at least that might send a strong message to them that they are not completely untouchable.

Black Dragon
June 23, 2005, 05:36 PM
Just compensation??? That won't happen in Michigan. I have a friend in
Wayne County that has been fighting Eminent Domain near the Detroit Metro
Airport. Wayne Counties idea of 'Just compensation" is paying $378,000 for
land and a Business that has been estimated at just under $7million. The
Counties has been playing dirty by cutting his power for several days and
then saying "Opps, did we do that? Sorry" . They have cut his water in the
same manner. The Airport Swat team was running an "exercise" when they
and an accident. They (SWAT) set off a bunch of "Flash/Bang" gernades
that blew out all the windows in my buddies Business. It took him months to
get paid for the work of putting in new windows. "Just Compensation" won't
happen. I've seen the proof. :(

feedthehogs
June 23, 2005, 05:43 PM
We have let them do it and have not resisted under the guise of being law abiding citizens. We have tried peacefully to correct this situation by voting for those who we think will protect the constitution, only to be betrayed.

Those who speak out or act will be labeled terrorists.

Right at this moment, as much as I love them, I regret having children and grand children, for I have left them nothing to be proud of.

America is officially on life support with very little time left.

:(

jefnvk
June 23, 2005, 05:45 PM
Sad. I can kinda see seizing property for roads or gov't buildings, kinda, but not for private development.

enfield303
June 23, 2005, 05:47 PM
Very dangerous precedent :banghead:

Nathaniel Firethorn
June 23, 2005, 05:53 PM
It's 1774 all over again. (http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/abs_coer.html)

This is going on near where I live. A church, believe it or not, has gotten the township to condemn a perfectly good neighborhood to put up a Pathmark supermarket. (http://betuf.org/redevpressrelease1.html)

:fire: :mad:

- pd

Refirignis
June 23, 2005, 05:56 PM
Everyone can complain all they want, but nothing will happen and you all know it. :rolleyes: No one here will admit it, but the final line to be drawn in the sand is when they actually come to your house for whatever reason to do whatever they see fit. :mad:

Sam Adams
June 23, 2005, 05:59 PM
Majority was Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

I'll shed no tears if the seats of these statist scumbags become suddenly and involuntarily vacant. Heck, I might even throw a party. I won't help that happen in any way, but it'll bring a big smile to my face if it does, because it'd be well deserved.

However unintended, I believe that this decision is going to have some very severe consequences. Taking someone's home away in return for a minimal payment, only to have that person see some very expensive property go up in its place, isn't the most effective means known to give people the warm & fuzzies.

For sure the Founders would be oiling up their muskets if George the Tyrant had tried this - and, as I mentioned, I'll shed no tears if there are suddenly several vacancies on the USSC. Maybe then the Court will actually read the Constitution.

Zundfolge
June 23, 2005, 06:08 PM
This is going on near where I live. A church, believe it or not, has gotten the township to condemn a perfectly good neighborhood to put up a Pathmark supermarket.


One thing we can do is make sure that any business that takes advantage of this crap suffers great loss ... boycotts are what I'm talking about, but also ... nevermind, this is the High Road ;)

Werewolf
June 23, 2005, 06:10 PM
ROFLMAO - really - this is just too funny.

All this outrage. Talk of the line has been crossed. We just left the awkward stage has me crackin' up.

In a week the average Joe Schmo (as someone called him) won't even remember this and that makes the huge assumption he took note at all.

It'll take a lot more than this ruling to make the people of America rise up and replace our current nanny state that tells us to bend over and spread 'em (all for our own good of course).

Get used to it and keep a good supply of KY Jelly on hand because it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. Sheep don't fight - they run and the America of today is 99.99999% sheep.

Zundfolge
June 23, 2005, 06:14 PM
Sheep don't fight - they run and the America of today is 99.99999% sheep.

Just because nobody will fight (and I agree ... most won't) doesn't mean that we haven't crossed that line where we should.

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 06:30 PM
I hope you're wrong, Werewolf. I fear you are correct. :banghead:

torpid
June 23, 2005, 06:33 PM
Get used to it and keep a good supply of KY Jelly on hand because it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.


Here, let me fix that statement for you:

Get used to it and keep a good supply of KY Jelly on hand because it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets hopeless.


:uhoh:

.

El Tejon
June 23, 2005, 06:35 PM
Just finished reading the opinion from my CALR service.

This is creates a playground for city/county attorneys and boards of zoning appeals with no guardrails. Just imagine where we will be after 10 years of litigation to ever expand this ruling. :uhoh:

To join in, very bad news. :eek:

TamThompson
June 23, 2005, 06:38 PM
I agree, and second that this could easily become a gun issue, since I see this as flat-out tyranny. There's really just no other words for it.

Flat-out tyranny.

The constitution does not say that government can act as a front for greedy developers. They have pushed it too far. Somebody better step in and correct this or the balloon will go up--as it should.

:fire: :cuss:

Waitone
June 23, 2005, 06:42 PM
In case you think there is universal understanding of what is at stake, take a gander at democratunderground at this thead http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3928553&mesg_id=3928553

Erich
June 23, 2005, 06:58 PM
If the ruling bothers you, http://www.ij.org/

RangerHAAF
June 23, 2005, 07:01 PM
We have no one to blame but ourselves for the complacent attitude that we've allowed to develop over the years.

Gun control, red light and speeding cameras, seat belt laws, anti-smoking ordinances and various other anti freedom measures. This property grab is the final straw and if it is allowed to stand the Constitution should be burned and it should be everyman for himself.

I haven't been this upset since the summer of 94 when the AWB was passed. This ruling is more insidious because it legitimizes the theft of private property by government. This cannot be allowed to stand. This is not a political issue it is a basic civil rights issue. We are supposed to live in a land of laws and the highest law is the Constitution.

This ruling by "rogue" Justices shouldn't come as a surprise. Just consider where they come from. SCOTUS is truly the last stronghold of the blue states. The opportunity will soon come to correct this problem.

Breyer/Kennedy=CA
Stevens=IL
Souter=NH
Ginsburg=NY

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101281.html

Molon Labe
June 23, 2005, 07:04 PM
It'll take a lot more than this ruling to make the people of America rise up and replace our current nanny state that tells us to bend over and spread 'em (all for our own good of course).The ruling itself will not cause the balloon to fly. The balloon will fly when a courageous individual fights to save his land instead of bending over.

Armed men like me will come to his aid. The results won't be pretty. But who said liberty was free?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

patentmike
June 23, 2005, 07:06 PM
Solution:Change the facts and head back to court.
The local city fathers are convinced that a particular piece of property would benefit the community if it were a chruch, the ACLU( or abortion clinic, democratic offical, or whoever) is forced to sell. Unfair? You bet!

Socialism wouldn't look like so much fun for liberals then, would it?

Mr. X
June 23, 2005, 07:12 PM
In case you think there is universal understanding of what is at stake, take a gander at democratunderground at this thead http://www.democraticunderground.co...mesg_id=3928553

Blurp is my hero! :D

I'd find it hard to believe that that person wasn't a troll taking the typical kleptocratic party line to some reductio ad absurdem.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 23, 2005, 07:14 PM
Erich,

Went on the Institute for Justice site ... Did a search on 2A issues using several search term. Have they had any 2A history?

Cacique500
June 23, 2005, 07:21 PM
Blurp is my hero!

I got to his second post and had to quickly shut the browser window :barf:

Ezekiel
June 23, 2005, 07:39 PM
What does apply is the gut-level, instinctual reaction that tells everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs, political stances, values systems, sex, race, age, or educational level, that having your house confiscated by the government and given to some corporation to be destroyed and replaced with a new strip mall is wrong, immoral, and completely unacceptable.

"All hail Manifest Destiny!" :barf:

"Oh yeah baby! I knew, some day, that The Man would get his. Yes! There is nothing quite like watching smug and sniveling sanctimonious bastards get thiers! Up yours settlers! Bite me wildly expansive capitalist society. Writh in shame you...

...what?

I've been assimilated? I AM "The Man"?

Damn."

The Indians lose again. :banghead:

Unless, of course, we start annexing white folks' lands for casinos... :evil:

Mr. X
June 23, 2005, 07:44 PM
I got to his second post and had to quickly shut the browser window

You should've read more, as it got much funnier. :)

mercedesrules
June 23, 2005, 08:20 PM
"How's about we states make a contract between us that creates a new government with a president, congress and a court. Then, we'll let that court have the final say about what the contract says." :scrutiny:

dpesec
June 23, 2005, 08:42 PM
The really scary part, at least according to an excerpt I read, is that the Governmetn is responsible for economic development.

Was this in the United States? I think the SCOUS has been reading too many foreign laws, like PRC, Cuba, USSR.

I really can't believe this hapened. I applaud Justice O'Conner, Thomas and the others whom realize that nothing the private citizens own is safe from the government.

Turkey Creek
June 23, 2005, 08:44 PM
Somewhere Joe Stalin and Adolf are smiling- this ruling, and I use that term very loosely, makes it just about impossible to call yourself a patriot- does anybody feel like putting it all on the line for this country as our fathers did in WW2- what is there to defend anymore?- I turn 60 in another week so, as the male ovine dung piles ever deeper, I probably won't live to see the total implosion of this land- but I sure do worry about my children and grandchildren and the kind of life they are going to face- as I gaze at my honorable US Army discharge I wonder why I bothered!

boofus
June 23, 2005, 08:45 PM
So what is to stop the government from using Eminent Domain to force everyone to sell all guns to Brady/VPC for pennies? Firearms are property too.

Hell I can see a Soylent Green situation too. If you are homeless or simply don't pay enough taxes, why not have the government ED you, and then sell you to some biotech company to turn you into an expensive but marketable, taxable product? They say there is enough precious metal and minerals in every human being to be potentially worth thousands if it could be refined.

The SCOTUS obviously believes the need to generate revenue or other 'public good' outweighs an individual's right to life, liberty, property.

pax
June 23, 2005, 08:47 PM
And in completely, totally unrelated news, from my local newspaper tonight: Wal-Mart is a dirty word in Yelm

YELM, Wash. -- Wal-Mart is a bad word in Yelm. Even referring to the retail giant in code is a no-no.

Mayor Adam Rivas won't let the public address the City Council if he even thinks they might mention the unmentionable.

Residents say it's censorship, but the city says it's just trying to protect itself if a legal battle brews over Wal-Mart's plan to build in this small town about 15 miles southeast of Olympia.

Residents have been able to say less and less about Wal-Mart at council meetings during the past five months.

"Initially we couldn't use the term 'Wal-Mart,' so the code word became 'big-box stores,'" said Gregory May, who heads up a Wal-Mart opposition group in Yelm. "They then just announced they would no longer accept any comments about Wal-Mart or big-box stores."



Some citizens are stunned that they've been silenced by the people elected to represent them.

"They just stop you short in your tracks," said Kellie Petersen, who owns a gardening store in town. Petersen is one of several people who have spoken up despite the restrictions.

"My issue was about traffic concerns. I knew enough to use the word 'Wal-Mart' at the very end, so I wouldn't be told to sit down," she said.

Yelm's city attorney, Brent Dille, said council members were fed up with requests that the city impose a moratorium on the large stores. But he also said they don't want to appear biased if an appeal of Wal-Mart's application comes before the council.

This isn't the first time the council has silenced the masses.

In April, it unanimously approved a motion banning the word "moratorium." That was in response to citizen requests that the council enact a moratorium on big box stores so the city's staff could review the city's decade-old zoning.

Instead, the city passed a moratorium on moratoriums. Meeting minutes say Council Member Bob Isom moved that "no moratoriums be imposed and that the issue not be brought before the council again."

And when a group was considering building a NASCAR track in Yelm, the council wouldn't allow public comment, even though an application was never submitted.

"It's the council's meeting. They can decide what they want to hear and what they're tired of hearing," Dille said. "You can understand if you're barraged for two months at meetings - the same people saying the same thing."

The Yelm Commerce Group has said that if the city approves the Wal-Mart application, it will appeal.


pax

Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money --- only for wanting to keep your own money. -- Joseph Sobran

Warren
June 23, 2005, 08:47 PM
I have a few questions:

Did the SCOTUS just give their assent to a form of central planning?

Is the end-all be-all of the purpose of government to raise revenue? Does government now exist for it's own sake?

Should a certain document start off " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect revenue base..."?

Can everything we have, have worked for and saved be sacrificed to some central planners with a "vision"?

Is there any point to having government around? I've been saying "No!" for a long time maybe I can start to get some amens now.


I've seen people argue that without government, bands of thugs will take all my stuff. So I'd say that this argument, never very persuasive, is now unsupportable. Can anyone make the argument that I'm better off with a government than without?

I agree that when it comes time for the evictions the cops will be on the side of the bulldozers. the local public safety agencies will do nothing to help those whose rights are being violated and will instead "enforce the law" regardless of what that does to the innocent people in the way of the bulldozers. Will support for the police fall even amongts those who typically are the cop's biggest supporters?

This will destroy property values as there will be no reason to improve or maintain a property if there is a chance all your improvements will be taken from you. This ruling also means that people will have a hard time getting a good price for their property because who wants to pay a lot for something that may just be taken away?

If the noise about the coming burst of the housing bubble is true the burst combined with lower values on property will mean even less property tax.

A lot less, such a loss will be a lot worse than what cities are dealing with now. I fear this is the beginning of a long spiral down as with decreasing tax revenue cities will try even more ED seizures which will accelerate the problem which will lead to more seizures and on and on....

Seeing that this tactic is failing they might come up with even worse ideas such as increasing other taxes to the point they destroy whatever incentive there is to save and invest.

Perhaps asset forfiture for even basic traffic or city code infractions?

Or taking over whole businesses the profits from which would go to the city.

Maybe even adding a mandatory public service requirement to get a high school diploma. Oh wait many locales already do this, so I should say add a larger requirement.


So how does it feel to have finally been turned into a serf? It has been coming for a while but this decision finally completes the process. The Lords of the Manor have all the say in how property is to be used. Your job is just to get out of the way. Of course every couple of years you get to vote for new Lords so I guess that means you really are free, doesn't it?


A few very difficult stopgap solutions:

Put an end to property tax. Take the incentive away from the politicians.

Uncharter your city. Take the politicans away. That would give you one less level of government to deal with it also makes it easy to spin any ED effort by pols at the county level as an attempt by "outsiders" to take your property which will get more people on your side.

Longer term (and still just as difficult) it is time for you to look at transferring all the "essential" city services into the free-market. Remove all the important things from the purview of government and you will remove it's need to tax. As a bonus you will get better services for less. And you will have more direct control and influence over them.

dpesec
June 23, 2005, 08:51 PM
If you look back at how countries grow, it's been because individuals and businesses have secure property rights. This ruling has knocked the foundation out of this security.
The reason I include business is that what applies to individuals could also apply to businesses.

Here's a nightmare idea. Say the city where Ruger's factories are located decide that "anything is better than a firearm manufacture's plant" they could use this ruling to take the factory and tear it down.

Will this happen tomorrow, no. In the future, yes, things get taken to the logical absurdity.

Warren
June 23, 2005, 09:01 PM
I could see a huge fight when Lowes pays off a city council to condem a Home Depot and give it to Lowes.

In fact I could see this happening a lot.


Given the amount of money it will now be possible to make as a local politician I would expect to see expenditures for even the smallest cities' elections go way up.

And this will make it even more difficult for a person who cannot self-finance his campaign to compete what with contribution limits and all.


Ahhhh ogliarchy! My heart for thee!

Warren
June 23, 2005, 09:03 PM
Absolutely.

Governments do not create anything. They only take and destroy.

dpesec
June 23, 2005, 09:08 PM
Does anybody know where I can get a t-shirt with this saying on it.
Trust the Government, just as an Indian.

I saw it once and didn't buy it.

cuchulainn
June 23, 2005, 09:11 PM
Governments do not create anything. Sure they do. They create fear and anger.

Sindawe
June 23, 2005, 09:21 PM
Sure they do. They create fear and anger. Don't forget misery. They excel at creating that. Well, all three really.... :fire:

308win
June 23, 2005, 09:21 PM
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
No, what the politicians have is another means to pay off the people who put them in power by taking private property under pretex and ceding it to private interest for profit earning projects.

beerslurpy
June 23, 2005, 09:39 PM
All this means is that the peasants no longer have recourse to the courts for protection. Which means more things will be settled through extralegal means.

Which isnt good, by the way.

garyk/nm
June 23, 2005, 10:00 PM
Seems to me the Supremes are behaving like a bunch of adolescents, constantly pushing to see how much they can get away with before getting punished.
Is it time yet? I need to stock up.

Waffen
June 23, 2005, 10:25 PM
At this rate if feels like within 100 years this country will have a new form of govt.

This is just outright wrong. I have no idea how anybody in wright mind would find this OK.

This is Tyranny

Nightfall
June 23, 2005, 10:56 PM
I could see a huge fight when Lowes pays off a city council to condem a Home Depot and give it to Lowes.

In fact I could see this happening a lot.Is anybody else disturbed of how all this kinda reminds them of events in a certain Ayn Rand book? Anyone? :uhoh:

2nd Amendment
June 23, 2005, 10:59 PM
At this rate if feels like within 100 years this country will have a new form of govt.

100? I say 10...

I am apalled at the number of "fence-sitters" I am finding elsewhere who "support" this, or at least try to justify it, I assume out of ignorance.

beerslurpy
June 23, 2005, 11:07 PM
Everyone I explained this to at work today didnt beleive me and then looked it up on google and was like "oh crap, that is so wrong."

I think the main problem is that no one has any idea what is going on. There was a mention of it on NPR on the way home today, but nothing else so far.

I could see a huge fight when Lowes pays off a city council to condem a Home Depot and give it to Lowes.

In fact I could see this happening a lot.

I would love to pay off the city council and have them condemn wal mart and sell it to me for a dollar so I could burn it down.

Nathaniel Firethorn
June 23, 2005, 11:08 PM
Is a poison-pill defense possible? Maybe something like a lien against your property for fifty million dollars (or an appropriately absurd amount), payable to you and due immediately if the property is taken for eminent domain.

- pd

ravinraven
June 23, 2005, 11:08 PM
...that 5 members of the SCOTUS are AINOs American In Name Only.

Somebody asked "Is it time yet?" It is past time. This heinous act by these unAmerican scumbags is a call to arms. These rotten low life thugs in robes need to be hounded out of the county. I cannot think of a low enough place to slam their rotten hides into. They are no longer citizen's of America. They have rejected membership in the human race.

These non American "judges" and anyone who takes advantage of the people using their anti-liberty ruling MUST be made to feel the wrath of the people they choose to steal from. I can only think of non-THR approved reprisals. I spit on these absolute anti American idiots.

rr

Werewolf
June 23, 2005, 11:19 PM
Is anybody else disturbed of how all this kinda reminds them of events in a certain Ayn Rand book? Anyone? Ayn Rand? Try reading Black Arrow by Vin Suprynowicz...

When I read it it was just an interesting story.

Now I'm not so sure that Vin isn't a bonafide PSYCHIC!

hillbilly
June 23, 2005, 11:28 PM
Hey Ezekiel.....yep, I'm afraid you are most definitely "the man" in this case, too.

So yep, you get screwed too................again.







And, somebody else wrote this:


" Everyone can complain all they want, but nothing will happen and you all know it. No one here will admit it, but the final line to be drawn in the sand is when they actually come to your house for whatever reason to do whatever they see fit. "



Uh, that's the whole point here. This ruling by the Supreme Court now greatly increases the liklihood that they will come to your house to take your house.

That's what this new "precedent" does....it legalizes and justifies coming to your house and taking it.

When this is acted upon, as it will be by lots of city, county, and local government officials who have been dying for chance to grab that prime property that those silly, uppity folks have been living on, and who won't listen to reason and sell for a low, low price, you will see somebody resist.

Even if only 1% of the population is willing to resist in some fashion, it virtually guarantees that in the fairly near future, we will see a news story of somebody, or a group of somebodys, holed up in their house and resisting somehow.

And no, the actual conflict does not actually start today with this ruling.

But this ruling, if allowed to stand, will creat the situation that will make actual confrontation a lot more likely and a lot closer.

The Boston Massacre happened in 1770....it didn't start the American Revolution, but brought the start of the revolution a lot closer.

The Stamp Act didn't start the revolution. The arrests and even murders of lots of colonists didn't start the revolution. But all of those events pushed the situation inexorably towards that end.

A whole lot of stuff happened before April 1775. And none of those events by themselves caused the ambush of British troops. But all of those events pushed the situation towards that point.

This is, at least in my opinion, the biggest push I've ever seen in person.

hillbilly

Zundfolge
June 23, 2005, 11:28 PM
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Actually its worse then that.

Lets say I buy a little plot of land outside of town in the mountains...its a nice little plot with a wonderful view and I build a modest little cabin on it.

Well now some rich guy who's well connected decides he wants it, so he can go to the county commission and tell them "I'd build a 4500 square foot mansion on it which would pay out 3 times as much in property tax as Mr. Zundfolge's little cabin".

It would generate more tax revenue so they could consider that "for the public good" and I'd end up losing my property and being forced to sell to him (of course he wouldn't live long enough to enjoy it, but I'd still be screwed ... on many levels).

seansean
June 23, 2005, 11:29 PM
This is a horrible decision, and I think it'll be the bush admin's undoing. I don't know if they were pushing for this decision behind the scenes, not saying they were, but they're in power, and it happened on their watch. people will be mobilized against them, and not just on the property rights issue, but the war and everything else(economic, environmental, etc.) will get a second skeptical look :scrutiny: which is exactly what they don't want. you guys are right. many people's eyes glaze over on policy/political issues, but everybody gets that the government taking your home to put up a mini-mall or a 7-11 or something is just wrong, and I don't think we're gonna stand for it :fire:

Things are about to get VERY interesting.

Zrex
June 23, 2005, 11:41 PM
I wonder whats the likelyhood of a few hundred people showing up to defend these peoples homes....

Anyone want to start writing about the Battle of New London?

Erich
June 23, 2005, 11:42 PM
Mongo, no - only property rights as far as I know.

pdmoderator, I've been thinking along the lines of getting the place declared a Superfund site! :) Use big gov to fight big gov!

nico
June 23, 2005, 11:43 PM
This is a horrible decision, and I think it'll be the bush admin's undoing. I don't know if they were pushing for this decision behind the scenes, not saying they were, but they're in power, and it happened on their watch.
I'm not sure what makes you think that, but most people see a distinct difference between the judicial branch and the executive branch. Hell, the Bush admin has been saying for a few years now that the courts are too full of left-wing activist judges, and this ruling just gives them more ammo. If anything, I think it'll help Bush get his judicial nominees confirmed.


and that "blurp" guy is definitely insane. He must have been trolling. . .

sm
June 23, 2005, 11:51 PM
.gov May I remind you of just one tidbit of history?


On the page facing the author's Foreword to his 1954 novel on the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, Robert Ruark quotes an old Basuto Proverb:

"If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them."

I am NOT alone in stating one of my most cherished VALUES is the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

...against all enemies foreign and domestic...

:fire:

seansean
June 23, 2005, 11:51 PM
agreed, most get the distinction of judicial vs. executive, I'm just thinking, well honestly, maybe I'm hoping this decision moves people to understand how much trouble we're in as a country with this nutty decision and the neocons running washington as well, whether they had anything to do with it or not. This decision helps rich people and corporations, and screws us, and I think we can mostly agree that this admin. has been completey pro-big business, so some might see a correlation there. as far as bush's comments about left-wing judges go, I never take anything he says at face value.

Rebar
June 24, 2005, 12:12 AM
I'm hoping this decision moves people to understand how much trouble we're in as a country with this nutty decision and the neocons running washington as well, whether they had anything to do with it or not. This decision helps rich people and corporations, and screws us, and I think we can mostly agree that this admin. has been completey pro-big business, so some might see a correlation there. as far as bush's comments about left-wing judges go, I never take anything he says at face value.
An attempt to light a candle in the darkness of your irrational Bush-hate:

This is EXACTLY what the Bush administration has been fighting, an out of control judiciary ruling on fiat and a hard left agenda. Blaming the Bush administration is like blaming the firemen for the fire. He's been trying to get constructionalist judges confirmed to the courts since day one, the democrats have been stonewalling his appointments - in one case for FOUR YEARS! The blame lies solely with the democratic party and the hard-left.

Larry Ashcraft
June 24, 2005, 12:16 AM
Somebody asked "Is it time yet?" It is past time. This heinous act by these unAmerican scumbags is a call to arms. These rotten low life thugs in robes need to be hounded out of the county. I cannot think of a low enough place to slam their rotten hides into. They are no longer citizen's of America. They have rejected membership in the human race.
It is time.

And you know my name. And where I live.

There comes a time when you gotta make a stand. -me

nico
June 24, 2005, 12:17 AM
This decision helps rich people and corporations
Can we please get something straight? The VAST majority of "rich" (you can define it however you want, but in this context, lets say it's people in the top tax bracket) people will never have anywhere near enough money or political clout to steal someone's property through the use of this ruling. This decision does not help "rich" people as a group. It helps a very small number of individuals and large companies who have the money to buy politicians.

And, it very well could screw a lot of "rich" people who happen to be small business owners. My dad and two of his best friends own small businesses (they all make enough to be considered "rich" by most people, although my dad makes less than his friends). One of them owns a tire shop. Under this ruling, the government could decide that his shop would be better suited as an NTB and take his business to sell to them.

gc70
June 24, 2005, 12:19 AM
I couldn't get the Cornell link to the decision to work, but here is a link from the Supreme Court's website to the decision (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf).

The decision itself is an absolute outrage. I am totally in favor of Justice Thomas' dissenting position - and remedy:

For all these reasons, I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.What a novel idea - returning to the original meaning of the Constitution.

TheOtherOne
June 24, 2005, 12:20 AM
Everyone can complain all they want, but nothing will happen and you all know it.Exactly. As usual, I'll write my senators and congressman and that's as far as it will go. Most people won't even do that.

The only ones that are very likely to make much of a point of it is those who actually have their homes stolen and a few others in the area might complain a little bit while it's going on but once the new strip mall or Wal-Mart is in they'll just say, "Well, it's a shame those people lost their homes but this sure is convenient having Starbucks so much closer".

seansean
June 24, 2005, 12:34 AM
when I say rich, I'm not talking small-business, I'm talking RICH. Wal-Mart rich.I'm not talking middle or upper middle class at all, I'm counting them among the screwed, so I believe we're on the same page. Rebar: As far as irrational bush-hate, I don't hate him,I hate what he and his neocon buddies have done to our country. Connecting them to this decision is a bit of a stretch, admittedly, absent hard evidence, I'm just saying when the super-rich get a decision like this to go their way, I wouldn't be shocked to find someone in the admin. neck-deep in it in some way. Just my suspicious nature ;)

Soup
June 24, 2005, 12:37 AM
Thomas Jefferson said...

No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
:fire:

nico
June 24, 2005, 12:48 AM
My message to my congresscritters
Dear Dirtbag,
I am writing you to voice my disgust with the Supreme Court's ruling today regarding the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. Below is an excerpt from the AP story on the case.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue."

This absurd ruling opens the door to allow anyone's property - and more importantly, their home - to be auctioned off to the highest bidder against their will. The Supreme Court has said with this ruling that they will not protect individuals from the whims of greedy developers and corporations. I urge you, as a Democrat, to stand up for the little guy and enact legislation to protect the American people from this kind of tyranny. If the Supreme Court will not protect the American people's civil rights, politicians, such as yourself, must step up to the plate and make sure that the injustice being forced on the citizens in New London is not allowed to happen to anyone.

Very Sincerely,
Me

I also included this P.S. in the letter to my representative. I'm sure if he ever reads it, he'll recognize the name. My grandmother happened to have jury duty on the same day as him a couple months ago and he walked up to her to say "hi" and addressed her by her name. I'm not proud of the fact that she knows him (MD folks will understand :uhoh: ), but I have no problems with exploiting it
P.S. [my grandmother], a loyal supporter of yours for your entire political career who has campaigned for you on several occasions, is my grandmother. She lives in Bowie, which has had a significant increase in economic growth of late. I would hate to see the results of this horrid decision by your colleagues on the Supreme Court to be used against my grandmother due to the inaction of our representatives in Congress.

beerslurpy
June 24, 2005, 12:59 AM
Nico, I wasnt aware there were any upstanding champions of property rights in MD. Ah, I see.

I was looking for this Jefferson quote
What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

but I also found this one, which I think is becoming more and more relevant with each passing day:

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Speaking of preserving ones spirit of resistance, what do you guys think of body armor? Go for rifle-proof or just regular IIIA stuff cops use? Also, where might one get a full-body bullet-condom like those LA bank robber guys had?

Headless Thompson Gunner
June 24, 2005, 01:04 AM
Does anyone else see the parallels between these "new" eminent domain powers and our various welfare programs? Both cases are nothing more than taking wealth from an individual and redistributing it to someone else who has no moral claim to it. Just a thought...


For what it's worth, the types of emenent domain takings under discussion here have been going on for years. It was hoped that the USSC would put a stop to these unconcsienable "economic redevelopment" takings, but the USSC has failed us yet again.

peacefuljeffrey
June 24, 2005, 01:05 AM
This whole abomination of a situation makes me think that John Ross laid out a perfectly viable template to follow.

And it is precipitously close to time to use it. :cuss:

-Jeffrey

sm
June 24, 2005, 01:14 AM
For those that have not read the following - I highly suggest you do in light of recent rulings:

"Metal and Wood"
by Dennis Bateman
http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Metal_and_Wood.html

nico
June 24, 2005, 01:20 AM
Nico, I wasnt aware there were any upstanding champions of property rights in MD. Ah, I see.

Don't get me wrong. If any of our so-called "representatives" supported property rights (we're on the list of states that already allows theft of property for private use :barf: :fire: ), I haven't heard of them (there are a few that I suspect are good, but only one of them has a D next to his name).

My last paragraph was an appeal to their egos (ie: the idea that Democrats are "for the little guy"), not a statement of my actual opinion.

Navy joe
June 24, 2005, 01:54 AM
Not much new to add here except that obvious measures will preclude local governments taking much since such a position will be untenable in the long run. I figure pretty soon you will run out of county administrators, attornies, and surveyors.

I note a THR record, 8 pages and the usual merry band of statist apologists have not poked a helmet over the berm.

Well, the market was off a good bit today, attributed to oil worries, technical profit taking, general summer silly season nervousness, etc. No mention of the issue that occupies us....yet. I think it moved the market though and people weren't seeing it. Hang on to you wallets...

Jeff
June 24, 2005, 02:56 AM
The ragged bastard-child of the People has been hoisted up, like some Frankensteinian creature, into the static and excitement of an autumn storm, and mercilessly exposed to its whims close above the Tower. Alas, the frantic bolts and crackling arcs illuminate for a moment-- with each uncertain strike-- the Position of the creature and its manipulators below; until a final blow of Crooked light arouses the People and makes certain-- in its totality-- their involvement in the felony.

hifi
June 24, 2005, 04:14 AM
Continuing to slide down the slope...

Warren
June 24, 2005, 05:10 AM
Saw this post at KABA.


Remember when George W. Bush got private property condemned so he could build his baseball stadium? Do you really think he cares about the Bill of Rights?




And for the Bush supporters:

If it is true that W did such a thing why would he care about this issue?

What kind of judges would he put on and would they rule any differently?

davec
June 24, 2005, 05:33 AM
Now, now. Lets be fair. Bush didn't condemn anything. The municipality of Arlington did under the auspices of the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA) in conjunction with the investment group headed by one George W. Bush (While he only owned 1.8% of the Texas Rangers, he was the groups managing general partner and later President of Baseball Operations). One Mathes family had their 13 acre parcel of land sized by the government under the rules of eminent domain.

Among court documents is an unsigned Rangers memo by a team representative, discussing the history of the Mathes tracts. The representative notes that in his first contact with the Mathes family concerning the land, on November 6, 1990, "I was not well received." The memo goes on to say that the ASFDA’s appraiser assigned the land a value of $3.16 per square foot, for a total value of $1.515 million. "An offer was made by the Authority at this price. This offer was rejected & the Sellers countered with $2,835,000.00 for all three tracts, i.e.: $5.31 p.s.f." In mid-December, the ASFDA offered the Mathes heirs just $817,220 for the three tracts, far below even what the ASFDA’s first appraiser had suggested. The Mathes family refused to sell, and the ASFDA seized the land through eminent domain.

http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.asp?FileName=970509_f1.htm



Oh, guess who footed the majority of the bill for the Stadium....it wasn't George or his fellow investors.

Guess who said: "I understand full well the value of private property and its importance not only in our state but in capitalism in general, and I will do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights when I am the governor of this state."


Yup. Sure you do George. Sure you do.

There's a whole other sub-plot to the stadium deal where the team refused to pay the city some money they promised...but that's another can of worms.

Another little fun factoid. Bush's initial investment was $606,302. (he had to borrow $500,000) In 1998 when the club was sold Bush pocketed 14.9 million dollars.


He's just a plain talkn' straight shootn' man of the people, that 'ole George.

Selfdfenz
June 24, 2005, 08:47 AM
Well...
I've read only parts of this thread but this a terrible thing.

Where is it in this thread that someone has directed us at a group or website attempting to organize politically and legally against this? Should we start one?

Many here agree our government is out of control. Can the Rs,Ds,ls, Ls and CPs agree on this one issue enought to organize politically and legally against it.

If we are going to push for an amendment this is more important than, medical marijuana, flag burning and marrriage amendments.

What say you?

S-

SteveS
June 24, 2005, 09:47 AM
Where other states stand
According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

MSNBC needs to do a little fact-checking. The infamous Poletown case in MI allowed the state to take land and give it to a private entity. It was overturned last year. I don't remember the name of the case. The MI Sup. Ct. said that the Michigan Constitution prohibited the taking of land for non-public use.

Again, I have a tremendous amount of contempt for the Justices that gave the ok to this land grab, but I'd like to see some public outrage directed towards the various elected officials on all levels that want to take the land in the first place.

beerslurpy
June 24, 2005, 09:48 AM
I agree self defenz. I think that this is an ideal crisis to draw together libertarians, republicans, many democrats, small business owners, homeowners, etc. If we capitalize on this effectively, it could turn out to have been a great thing.

Start an organization on the web, publicize it via effective ways such as chain letters? Use donations to start running ads on TV and lobbying congress? At the very least, we need to inform people that this has happened. If we leave it up to the MSM no one will ever know about this in the general public?

Derek Zeanah
June 24, 2005, 09:50 AM
What say you?I say we live in a time where the sort of remedies you propose no longer function (if they ever did).

beerslurpy
June 24, 2005, 09:55 AM
Again, I have a tremendous amount of contempt for the Justices that gave the ok to this land grab, but I'd like to see some public outrage directed towards the various elected officials on all levels that want to take the land in the first place.

I think that would be the case here. There are enough people with old fashioned views of property rights around here that anyone who tried misuing ED locally would find themselves on the wrong end of probably several guns. Not to mention the corporate recipient of the stolen property would find itself to be a target as well I imagine.

For example, Walmart would have a lot more to lose than the average farmer or homeowner through armed confrontation. Once it got in the news that Wal Mart or Pfizer or McDonalds have been singled out for attack, it wouldnt be long before they begin to see a big sales hit. Would it end them as comapnies? No. Would it be more expensive than paying fair market value for people's property? Yes. That isnt even examining the negative consequences of bad publicity from corporations using local governments to steal stuff from hardworking americans.

molonlabe
June 24, 2005, 10:01 AM
Hello from liberal Baltimore.
Does anyone see a positive reply? This link will probably be gone tomorrow.
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/3261746/detail.html

mrtgbnkr
June 24, 2005, 10:15 AM
Has anyone seen what companies are planning on being involved in this 'development'? A boycott and letter writing campaign to corporate big wigs might convince them that the cost is greater than the gain. What hotel was planned? I know I don't want to stay at any of their locations.

71Commander
June 24, 2005, 10:21 AM
The ruling in Michigan was the Pinnacle Park decision. For now we're safe. Subject to change.

Bruce H
June 24, 2005, 10:30 AM
After wadeing through this thing it looks like we need to concentrate on our state legislatures. SCOTUS left it open to the individual states to decide what public use means. Contact your state repersentatives and senators and see what their position is.

Nick1911
June 24, 2005, 10:41 AM
Where is it in this thread that someone has directed us at a group or website attempting to organize politically and legally against this? Should we start one?

I can provide housing, if someone does the design.

petrel800
June 24, 2005, 10:49 AM
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Molon Labe
June 24, 2005, 11:02 AM
After wadeing through this thing it looks like we need to concentrate on our state legislatures. SCOTUS left it open to the individual states to decide what public use means. Contact your state repersentatives and senators and see what their position is. Let's face it: we're on our own from here on out.

Don't waste time writing letters to .gov; we're beyond that stage. You need to start collecting supplies. You need to network with local like-mind people. You need to purchase lots of surplus ammo. You need to scout the woods looking for bug-out locations.

jaxfl
June 24, 2005, 11:06 AM
I thought communism was dead? :what: Is that not what they do to people in 3rd world countries? Legally steal the land for the rich? Is that not what we did to the true American? I don't remember voting on this? I thought the people ran the government. Did someone announce that the court was going to be voting and ask for our opinion? If they did not, then you have just seen you constitutional rights taken away and you don't even get to voice your opinion, it is to late to change it now. So I guess the next constitutional right that we loose is free speech, the 2nd Amendment :cuss: , the constitutional right to vote, what goes next? There has to be something that can be done about this. I am just not smart enough to do it. I know there is no Constitution right to vote. It does not exist anywhere in that document. Did you know it is up to the states to decide how they want to be able to select congressman, senators and representatives to the Electoral College? :banghead: Ok I have again read the ruling and heard the discussions on the news and here and think it is the big rich businesses that are behind it. The ruling says that the government can take "private and business property" to grow the community with a larger tax base. So if I am a big businessman in a small town and some little business guy is making my life hard I can (with the help of my government friends) take over the little guy and crush his business to grow mine? That sounds fair. Can you say Wally-World, Lowes, Home Depot, Bushgardens just to name a few? As someone said, "this is setting the standard" there will be more to come. We need to stop it, get it reversed, is there not a Senator, Congressman or some high government official on this site that can help???????? I just found this on another website: http://www.ij.org/ see what you think.

CAS700850
June 24, 2005, 11:22 AM
So far, I've read a lot of posts that I agree with, that this is a bad ruling, that it is garbage to use eminent domaine to seize proeprty (even with payment) for private development. But, at the same time, I see hope from this decision. Many people outside of our community have been watching for this decision, and not just the rich looking to get richer. Perhaps this case will be the catalyst to get some real changes made in the system, to protect the individuals against the corporations and the government. If we all yell loudly enough to our "reps", or at least make this a big enough issue that they see potential election difficulties, they will act out of self-preservation, if nothing else.

Then again, I've always been an optimist.

I wouldn't go stockpiling ammo yet.

Werewolf
June 24, 2005, 11:37 AM
I thought the people ran the government.Hmph... Where the hell have you been? That hasn't been the case for the last 145 years.

So you better get that treasonous thought out of your head young man!

Molon Labe
June 24, 2005, 11:38 AM
I wouldn't go stockpiling ammo yet.Too late. :)

hillbilly
June 24, 2005, 11:47 AM
If you wait until you think you really, really need it to begin stockpiling, you're already too late.

Don't be like the Rodney King Riot yuppies, who all ran out to buy guns when they thought they might need one, only to find out it was too late.

By the time you really "need" it, the ammo supplies will have all been cut off.

hillbilly

bamawrx
June 24, 2005, 11:52 AM
FYI
Be careful with the use of the word "neocon" it is understood to mean JEW inside the beltway.

scout26
June 24, 2005, 12:14 PM
This decision had nothing to do with "BIG BUSINESS", it had everything to do with increasing tax revenue, which means increasing the size/power of government.

Using Developers/"BIG BUSINESS" is merely a means to an end.

alan
June 24, 2005, 12:15 PM
Regarding this latest from USSC, the following comes to mind.

While JPFO might well not have coined the phrase BOHICA, which translates to Bend Over, Here It Comes Again rings all to appropriately.

Either earlier in this discussion, or at another site, one poster at least noted the following re this ruling. PEOPLE WILL DIE. The poster went on a bit, explaining the thinking behind his comment. The thinking sounded quite reasonable by the way, which is not to say that I personally advocate violence, the poster didn't either, however push coming to shove, the possibilities of physical violence loom quite large I think.

Given that the people who sit on The Court are not dumb, stupid or otherwise lacking in perception or imagination, one does wonder as to how the above possibilities escaped their august attention, if indeed they did. One also wonders as to exactly what sort of message their seeming disregard for the possibilities might be sending.

dakotasin
June 24, 2005, 01:35 PM
just out of curiosity, maybe some of the more legal and politically astute can handle: is there a possibility that this ruling opens the door a little wider for states' rights? meaning that individual states will, once again, regain the individual power they were supposed to retain - at least before interstate commerce laws took it away?

TrybalRage
June 24, 2005, 01:36 PM
I really need to get a SHTF rifle.

seansean
June 24, 2005, 01:44 PM
guys, I'm a member of a group called the sovereign society, and I thought I'd pass along their analysis of this ruling:
COMMENT: The Public Owns Your Home.

Dear A-Letter Reader:
The startling headline in yesterday's late news read: 'Supreme Court Rules
Cities May Seize Homes.'

The article states: "Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for
shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled,
giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate
tax revenue. In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the
decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class
Americans."

Four of the five justices who voted for this travesty are notorious liberals,
but they were joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who
supposedly is (was) a 'conservative.'

The Chairman of the Sovereign Society, Jack Pugsley, writing in the forthcoming
July 2005 issue of our members' monthly newsletter, The Sovereign Individual,
did not know how prescient his words would be.

Here's what Jack writes: "Those of us at The Sovereign Society agree that the
right of property is fundamental to civilization. In fact, the central tenet
of our credo is that every individual has the natural right to keep, control,
and dispose of his or her justly acquired property."

Jack went on to quote, William Howard Taft, 27th US president who said:
"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important
individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with
that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization
than any other institution established by the human race."

Jack added this (and sadly he was right): "However, Taft was wrong saying the
Constitution guarantees citizens’ right to property. The 5th Amendment states
that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law." Thus property is not sacrosanct. Your property is safe unless
legislators decide someone else needs it more than you do." And now the US
Supreme Court has said just that. Public use trumps private property.

In effect the Court has placed above the right to private property the
politicians who operate at a level of government well known for corruption and
highly susceptible to blandishments of construction companies and builders who
dole our political donations and jobs.

This ruling turns American history on its head. Alexis de Tocqueville in
"Democracy in America" (1835/1840) said of property rights: "Why is it that in
America, the land par excellence of democracy, no one makes that outcry against
property in general that echoes through Europe?" His answer: "It is because
there are no proletarians in America. Everyone, having some possession to defend,
recognizes the right to property in principle."

Over two centuries American leftists and liberals have tried to make private
property an object of scorn, even contending that owning property does not rise
to the level of a civil right. Now five judges have ignored history and basic
human rights. A full 70% of US residents own or are buying their own homes --
and now they are all in danger of government confiscation at the whim of
politicians.

In truth, private property serves as the basis for all liberty, since without
personal economic power, a job, a home, wealth, the individual cannot support
himself or his or her family, and is far more prone to government control --
just as liberal statists love to have it.

If ever there was a case to be made for a constitutional amendment to overturn
a Supreme Court decision, this is it.

That's the way it looks from here.
Bob Bauman, Editor

the website is:
http://www.sovereignsociety.com/

boofus
June 24, 2005, 02:16 PM
I hate to sound like one of those tin-foil hat survivalist crazies but it may be prudent to invest in military body armor and a good gas mask.

I'm probably going to start looking for some strike plates for my vest and researching on what decent gas masks I can afford. If things really start to go south you probably won't be able to drive up to your local Walmart to pick up a box of shells and a Level III vest.

johnster999
June 24, 2005, 02:54 PM
In my opinion, June 23, 2005 should be remembered as a sad day for America. Equal in many ways to Dec 7, 1941 and Sept 11, 2001. Clearly Liberty has taken a hard blow on the chin.

Local governments have been granted a brand new "Absolute Eminent Domain Power" over their residents and they will gleefully exercise this power everywhere they can.

999

Molon Labe
June 24, 2005, 03:02 PM
Just a head's up: if you're not already a member of a citizen's militia, now might be a good time to join...

unixguy
June 24, 2005, 03:10 PM
Has anybody seen any sign of a response from the white house? I'd like to know what they think this means to the attempts to build an "ownership society".

Walt Sherrill
June 24, 2005, 03:26 PM
I don't understand why the Supreme Court even heard this case...

The Supereme Court of Connecticut based its decision on very clear state law/statutes, which showed that the state legislature was fully in favor of the type of confiscation the CSC supported.

SCOTUS could have just butted out and let the decision stand, and it would have remained -- however distasteful we find it -- a matter of state law. Now, it seems, its something slightly different. But still based on state law; other state laws might lead us in a different direction.

I did write my Congressman, my Senator, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the senior minority member, the head of the House's Judiciary Committee, and his minority senior member. I said forget about gay marriage, abortion and flag burning, and deal with a far more pressing issue: the right to property!

Biker
June 24, 2005, 03:34 PM
In truth, the vast majority of us don't own our property anyway. We pay rent to a government in the form of property taxes and if we get too far behind on our rent, we're evicted.
Biker

Selfdfenz
June 24, 2005, 03:36 PM
I say we live in a time where the sort of remedies you propose no longer function (if they ever did).

I'm not ready to start digging a fox hole. I am 100% convinced no one will get violent about this. Talk yes, do no. Their will be no riots, no violence. Ain't gonna happen.

So, with that carcus buried, we dang sure should set about organizing politically against this thing. I don't have any writing or web skills but I do have a paycheck and a checkbook!

Local governemnt, which comes to be or will become, populated with developers and friends of developers will make only the deepest swamps and deserts safe places to own property. If they can see, it they can take it.

If you have something on your property that competes with their interests they just need to find someone interested in the property that will put something on it that doesn't compete with their interest and your property get condemned. One way to get those pesky school taxes under control is but tax paying warehouses where the school kids used to live.

The size and range of our government is out of control. Their will be those that think wrongly the shooting is about to begin and they will wait till h--- freezes over cause that will not happen. Their will be those that will do not a thing because it can't happen to them. The other 20% will change things but if it doesn't happen politicaly and peacefully it ain't gonna happen.

S-

cuchulainn
June 24, 2005, 03:57 PM
Selfdfenz

Hear! Hear!

2nd Amendment
June 24, 2005, 04:02 PM
if it doesn't happen politicaly and peacefully it ain't gonna happen.

If those be the restrictions then it ain't gonna happen.

Derek Zeanah
June 24, 2005, 04:08 PM
I wasn't saying "hunker down," I was saying "you're kidding yourself if you think that picketing in free-speech zones, sending e-mails/calls to interns working for your representatives, writing letters to the editor, or any of the traditionally advocated remedies will make things any better."

Corruption happens. Especially at the local level -- I've seen it in person, with property damage and death threats to match (my mom played on a city council where she tried to do the right thing -- go figure). Here's a typical example of the sorts of things I've seen: Woman gets elected to city council, and starts in a financial position where her husband is unemployed and they're at risk of losing their home.
4 years later city councilmember is now a home owner, with 3 additional properties (and a private aircraft) owned outside of the county so that it doesn't need to be reported in the standard paperwork. Husband is still unemployed.
It turns out she voted for and advocated for a few unpopular expensive developments (the largest was a $2 billion deal), along with some serious advocacy of these sorts of seizures behind closed doors (technically illegal, but what're you gonna do?)
The population of the city is anti-growth, but she gets re-elected anyway because she lies about her voting record. She votes for xxx, claims she didn't, and people vote based on the content of the ads they hear.That's the way it is. We got a guy "recalled" once. What this means is we got more than enough signatures to get the SOB out of office, passed them up to the county level, and nothing happened for months until the time limit ran out, at which point it was kicked back because the timer had run out.

That's politics. You try and educate people about issues on a board like this long enough, and you begin to realize that the majority of people don't want tp be educated. Issues of race, religion, "liberal" vs "conservative," and the rest become much more important. Those you have convinced will do things like vote for Schwarzenegger instead of a much more appropriate candidate, because Arnie "can win." Same reason the dems went with Kerry -- "he can beat bush," which trumped no-one liking the mean-sack.

So, where's that leave us?

Me? I just bought 5.5 acres in a rural area that gives my wife and I enough options to live happily. I don't believe in "revolution" in the regular sense: I don't want to turn my back on my wife, career, and the life I've build forever and ever.
I don't want to kill a bunch of mostly good people who are "just doing their jobs" to support their own families. You might argue that particular politicians/judges deserve death, but the people you'll be killing are mostly good cops/bureaucrats. That's bad juju.
I don't believe democracy is appropriate for today's USA. You overthrow the current system, and initiate elections. 20 years later the same voters have voted the same meat-sacks (though with different names, and possibly different labels) into the same seats of power.
What was your revolution for again?Don't get me wrong -- there's a lot wrong with the US today, I just don't see any way to fix it. So I'm gonna mind my business and do the best I can in the mean-time.

I don't see another rational choice. :(

EVIL5LITER
June 24, 2005, 04:16 PM
The
Counties has been playing dirty by cutting his power for several days and
then saying "Opps, did we do that? Sorry" .

I can also see where someone might be so inclined to say something like, "Oops, did I blow the front half off of that IRS building?"

Those who fail to know history are doomed to repeat it, and all that jazz.

Not suggesting something like that, I'm just saying the government is setting itself up for that.

thorn726
June 24, 2005, 04:19 PM
If private property rights are no longer protected than there is no longer any need for government.

again and again, this is the truth. insanity. made homeless by govt.

mercedesrules
June 24, 2005, 04:30 PM
Dig up, y'all:

(Derek Zeanah) I don't believe democracy is appropriate for today's USA.
I couldn't agree more, DZ.

rhubarb
June 24, 2005, 04:36 PM
Derek said:

* I don't want to turn my back on my wife, career, and the life I've build forever and ever.
* I don't want to kill a bunch of mostly good people who are "just doing their jobs" to support their own families. You might argue that particular politicians/judges deserve death, but the people you'll be killing are mostly good cops/bureaucrats. That's bad juju.
* I don't believe democracy is appropriate for today's USA. You overthrow the current system, and initiate elections. 20 years later the same voters have voted the same meat-sacks (though with different names, and possibly different labels) into the same seats of power.
* What was your revolution for again?

From our Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

This is an issue with which I have struggled. I read what our Founding Fathers said and am humbled. They spoke fiery speeches and pounded the lectern while shouting things like:

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!...There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!...I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

It wasn't idle internet chatter. They by golly stood up and were counted.

Now, I am not nor have I been a member of any group that so espoused nor have I myself expressed the view that we should engage in violent insurrection against the government of these United States. But I also have little faith in my efforts writing and emailing our leaders. It has crossed my mind that armed resistance against the current tyranny may come in my lifetime. Would I do my part or does my comfortable lifestyle make me too complacent? Is liberty for me and my children important enough? Am I willing to die to ensure the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution and its Amendments? If the answer is yes, what is my trigger to start fighting? Is armed resistance even necessary? I believe that our current Constitution as it is written is nearly perfect. It is all the accouterments added by the power-hungry legislators of the last century and a half that have perverted it. If only there were a system restore button.

I am not advocating anything. I am just sharing the thoughts that have crossed my mind lately.

Rebar
June 24, 2005, 04:38 PM
If you didn't think the NY Times was left wing before:
That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/opinion/24fri1.html?

Like I said, this is a logical consequence of the liberal/left agenda. And I don't think it's the end, by a long shot, this ruling can be stretched to cover just about everything.

There are a few courses of action. One, impeach these justices and clear out the liberal/left activist judges. Another - a consitutional amendment. Or amendments, each state can amend it's consitution to strip this power from local governments, I think Utah has done this already.

One final comment to those who think there's no difference between democrats and republicans: this ruling shows how wrong you all are.

TrybalRage
June 24, 2005, 04:42 PM
Me? I just bought 5.5 acres in a rural area that gives my wife and I enough options to live happily.

Yep. Until you are 70, on a fixed income, your 'rural' is now 'suburban', and too old to pay, or fight, or help yourself.

Just another passing article in the paper about that new mall, and a couple of locals to go "aw, poor guy."

I see it happening now all over my county.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 24, 2005, 04:48 PM
If you didn't think the NY Times was left wing before:

Quote:
That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

The New York Times supports this because they used eminent domain to seize land for their new headquarters building in New York City (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml). They didn't even make an offer to the owner first. Just sent the state government over to declare it blighted and seize the land that had been in his family for over 100 years for "public use".

johnster999
June 24, 2005, 04:49 PM
Rhubarb's thoughts echo many of my own. I did not believe it was likely that we'd see an armed struggle for basic liberty inside America in my lifetime. I'm beggining to think otherwise.

999

Derek Zeanah
June 24, 2005, 04:53 PM
Trybal:

I've said it before: "SHTF" is a personal situation, and it happens when they're on your door, and you've got 5 seconds to decide the rest of your life. It's that point when the following issues become very important: Does your spouse know where all your important documents are, and if the house "accidentally" burns down, can she get on with life?
Are you equipped appropriately?
Are you trained to use that appropriate equipment?
Have you thought through the issues, and know where you stand on them?
Have you got someplace to go, and maybe a vehicle that isn't immediately associated with you?
If you end up on the news, in a "stand-off" where both entrances are watched, have you got a way out of the house before the swat team or 6-dynamite-stick "distraction device" gets thrown into the domicile?I think everyone should think thought these issues very carefully. If a government employee with a nice demeanor and a gun on his hip shows up one day to let you know that you're going to have to leave your property so the "rightful owners" can raze it and build something else, and by-the-way you'll receive no compensation because the 2-gallon gas can you use for your lawn mower has spilled and the local EPA-type has declared the area "contaminated" (the new owners will bill you for clean-up, thanks), you need to know how to act. What's most important to you? What's rational? What's the role that the cop with 3 kids who got dispatched with this piece of paper that he hasn't even read going to be in the drama you're outlining?

These aren't easy decisions.

Regardless, for reasons posted in my last post, I don't see Claire's "solution" as being effective right now. What's the alternative to what we've got now, and how to we get there?

Personally, I can't improve on the constitution, and I've watched it fail. What's the alternative?

If you want me to jump on-board with you, you'll need to give me a solution that seems like it might, just possibly, work to solve the problem you're trying to solve.

Waitone
June 24, 2005, 04:54 PM
One final comment to those who think there's no difference between democrats and republicans: this ruling shows how wrong you all are.I am still waiting to hear from spinelessrepublicans. Their silence is deafening. I draw one of two conclusions. First, they are waiting to hear from home so they can feed back what they just heard, or two, they are in agreement and just don't know how to spin it. In either case spinelessrepublicans are taking too long to formulate a reaction, which leads me to believe they are not aware of how deeply felt is the betrayal by the courts. If spinelessrepublicans were concerned about private property rights their reaction would be immediate and firm.

No doubt they are waiting for oped page of the NYT and WP to pontificate over the weekend, They are also waiting to see what the talking heads say on sunday. And third they are busy conducting polls. In no circumstances do I see the spineless party operating out of principal.

Sickening, just sickening. :scrutiny:

Biker
June 24, 2005, 04:55 PM
I agree with Johnster and Rhubarb. The average American has his SUV, big screen and plenty of pizza (bread and circuses anyone?).
Fact is, when all is said and done, there is a lot more said than done.
Would that I was wrong.
Biker

R.H. Lee
June 24, 2005, 05:16 PM
Derek- I don't think the problem is with the constitution, or even our system of government. The symptom of the problem is that government has become too big, too powerful and has too much of our money. And not only at the federal level. Local and state government has grown exponentially. The root of the problem is now, and has been, the public apathy to government power grabs. This is nothing new, it has been progressing for at least the last 50 years, and continues virtually unopposed by a people who are rightfully, legally, and morally entitled to self governance.

Sure, we all want to do 'something', but what is that 'something' that will make a difference, and return us to a free society based on self determination and reaping the rewards thereof? People won't even bother to educate themselves on various issues over which they have complete control at the ballot box, let alone turn out to vote. We are apparently fat, dumb, and happy, content wallowing in our consumerism and believing our lives are fulfilled because we have 'stuff'. It ain't working.

Who knows how to turn back the invevitable slide into a Europeon style socialist state? That, IMO, is where we're going. The attitudes, values, opinions and principles of those on this board are in a minority. Very few, if any, of our 'representatives' represent us when they discover it is more profitable to represent themselves and there really is no accountability. WTH, even if they get voted out of office, they've given themselves so many perqs and benefits, they're set for life. Not to mention the ability to go into 'private enterprise' (that's an oxymoron; .gov and .corp are one and the same) with the power of their 'sphere of influence'.

I could go on and on about the complete lack of integrity in government and business; the wide open borders; the welfare state; the out of control bureaucracy, etc. But these again are symptoms of our failure to value the country and the freedoms we were given by those who have gone before us.

We have met the enemy, and he is us. :(

2nd Amendment
June 24, 2005, 05:30 PM
Umm, Waitone, this decision came from the consistently leftist Justices, except for Kennedy. The Dems are scared right now the Repubs are going to SPIN this as a "Look what the Dems REALLY think of the Little Guy" issue. Not certain what it is Republicans have to answer for here? And in all honesty I'm not certain what Dems do, either... This is bigger than partisanship. You'd do well to figure that out quick, as would everyone else.

TrybalRage
June 24, 2005, 05:34 PM
Weeeee, starting already :banghead:

Clicky (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024)

also,

Arlington Hails Supreme Court Ruling

(Arlington, TX) -- Arlington city leaders are pleased by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, even though they say it doesn’t directly apply to their efforts to assemble land for a Dallas Cowboys stadium. The ruling allows condemnation of land for use by private developers. The city will own the Cowboys stadium. Land purchases are continuing, even though some landowners are not cooperating with the city or the city’s appraisers.

(no link, sorry)


Our first course of action should be to fight this on a local and state level, since states can still rule to NOT use eminent domain for private use.

2nd Amendment
June 24, 2005, 05:46 PM
A state can rule all it wants. Any such ruling is going to be hauled straight into court, the SCOTUS decision cited and that will be that. We've already established with Raich exactly where the final word dwells.

Waitone
June 24, 2005, 05:51 PM
This is bigger than partisanship. You'd do well to figure that out quick, as would everyone else.If by partisanship you mean democrat v republicans, I agree. I am well aware the spineless party had nothing to do with the ruling (other than ancient appointments), but what I refer to is once again one of the two parties fails to show up in any meaningful manner. I refer to the discredited :rolleyes: concept of leadership. Bush is all about management. If you were to get a few beers in him I think he would admit to being proud of being a manager. There are times in his position were management is not what is needed. Leadership is what is necessary. I know he can do it because I've seen his work over the last few years. It seems he (and his party by extension) think the problems domestically can be fixed by management instead of active leadership. We're only two days into the fallout of SCOTUS' decision but I would at the least expect to see some kind of press release pointing out that the latest SCOTUS emission is a crystal clear picture of what the court battles is about. It may come next week, but I would not be surprised if it comes too late in the story cycle. Republicans are appearing to be timid and uncertain.

If you change the definition of partisanship from democrat v republican to something like marxist v classical liberal then this decision is most certainly a partisan issue.

Hawken50
June 24, 2005, 06:00 PM
if i were the owner of one of those small businesses and homes i would use every penny i got from the forced "sale" of my property to hire a lawyer and file a request for the use of eminit domain to seize the houses and property of every person who signed off on the taking of my property, right up to the supreme court justices, so i could put up a business that would earn more tax revenue than what's there currently. of course it would be denied but i'd probably rasie some awareness.

2nd Amendment
June 24, 2005, 06:10 PM
Well, this is a start, though nothing more than that...

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?lp001

longeyes
June 24, 2005, 06:51 PM
Republicans are appearing to be timid and uncertain.

Timid & uncertain or just woefully compromised themselves? Part of the problem? Bush's record, as was pointed out above, isn't so clean on this score.

If Bush chooses to address the cancer in SCOTUS by appointing Alberto Gonzalez--call it loyalty, call it cronyism, what's the difference?--I think we will all have to face the fact that neither extant major Party has a clue. Or wants to have.

Waitone
June 24, 2005, 06:57 PM
If Bush chooses to address the cancer in SCOTUS by appointing Alberto Gonzalez--call it loyalty, call it cronyism, what's the difference?--I think we will all have to face the fact that neither extant major Party has a clue. Or wants to have.Actual joke making rounds in DC

Question--What is the english translation of the spanish word "gonzales"?
Answer--souter

Bruce H
June 24, 2005, 07:55 PM
Now does everybody understand why term limits are so necessary at every step of government. Never give an elected official a chance to empire build. If there is no reason to protect their job they won't. They just might do what is necessary as outlined in the constitution. Liars and thieves don't stay around a place where lies don't matter and their is nothing to steal.

Brett Bellmore
June 24, 2005, 08:02 PM
if i were the owner of one of those small businesses and homes i would use every penny i got from the forced "sale" of my property to hire a lawyer and file a request for the use of eminit domain to seize the houses and property of every person who signed off on the taking of my property, right up to the supreme court justices, so i could put up a business that would earn more tax revenue than what's there currently. of course it would be denied but i'd probably rasie some awareness.

And you'd eat, what? Moral satisfaction? Trust me, a few Molotov cocktails would be just as satisfying, and a heck of a lot cheaper.

The only way to stop this is make sure that NOBODY who does it profits in the end.

George Hill
June 24, 2005, 08:15 PM
Don't know if this has been posted yet - but it's started.
This time in Texas:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024

Norton
June 24, 2005, 08:26 PM
Don't know if this has been posted yet - but it's started.
This time in Texas:


Similar thing here in Baltimore area....Baltimore County wants to "upgrade" a residential waterfront community and they have been for some time successful in putting off the bulldozers. It appears that this will be the nail in the coffin for them. :fire:

bg
June 24, 2005, 08:32 PM
I guess everyone in way or another might get forced to pick their own
"Alamo". In the not to distant future I may be looking at this revised
"Eminent Domain" matter. I don't really have the funds to up and move
and I'd get lil 2 nothing for an old "coach" as some like to call
mobile homes..Hard to say what'd I do. All I know is once again
the lil guy and gal has been screwed over.

cpileri
June 24, 2005, 08:36 PM
New London was but the first to fall under the seige...

You survive a seige by having enough stuff to live on while encourging the enemy to lose interest, right?

C-

MudPuppy
June 24, 2005, 08:49 PM
Modern day Railroad barons. Those justices are freakin' idiots and are obviously an enemy to the constition.

This can also be referred to as the "I've got more money than you, I'm taking you're stuff" ruling.

I remember as a child this crap only happened "over there".

nico
June 24, 2005, 09:05 PM
Trust me, a few Molotov cocktails would be just as satisfying, and a heck of a lot cheaper.
I was thinking the same thing. If the victims of this ruling waited until whatever is being built on their land is finished, and then did something to absolutely destroy it, it'd send a pretty good message and be completely justified IMO. Imagine a marina full of $100,000+ boats. . .

beerslurpy
June 24, 2005, 09:22 PM
Well I did a little research and so far it seems like a lot of the contentious ED cases end up with the corporation doing the snatch "voluntarily" backing off. I imagine that successfully stealing someone's land and then having the store you build burned down and your employees shot is something of a phyrric victory.

You dont need a lot of pissed off crazies to make a really big mess. One person, one disabled sprinkler system, one can of gas, one gun for interlopers.

hillbilly
June 24, 2005, 09:58 PM
I am not advocating any violent actions here.

But anyone who "alamos up" inside a house is a poor judge of tactics.

There are a lot of things a determined, creative individual, or small group of determined, creative individuals could do short of ambushing British troops on the way to Concord.

They could, say, dump several shiploads of tea into the harbor.

They could, say, waylay and then tar and feather agents of the land confiscators.

They could, say, stage public effigy burnings and street demonstrations.

They could, say, do any sort of nasty, creative, rebellious things exactly like the "Sons of Liberty" did back in the years leading up to 1776.

And, one more thing.

Every single redcoat killed in the American Revolution was just some decent guy trying to do his job, who probably was an okay bloke who might have even had a wife or kids back home, and who might have been fun to share a pint of beer with down at the tavern.

That's why things in the American Revolution took such a tortorous route to the first open combat of April 1775..........a shooting war is awful, brutal, ugly, and means killing lots of otherwise fine folks in nasty ways.

But everyone has to make up his or her own mind....what things are worth living for, what things are worth dying for, what things are worth killing for..........You must think about these things and come to your own decisions.

hillbilly

cpileri
June 24, 2005, 10:07 PM
"http://www.reason.com/interviews/bullock.shtml
What's important to point out is that even the majority admitted that state courts are free to interpret their own provisions in a manner that's more protective of property rights. Thankfully, every state Constitution has prohibitions against private takings and a requirement that takings be for public use. And, only six states have held that economic development condemnations are Constitutional. Nine have held that they are not. And most states have not addressed it. "

Which 9 states already ruled this is unconstitutional?

Also:
"I imagine that successfully stealing someone's land and then having the store you build burned down and your employees shot is something of a phyrric victory.
You dont need a lot of pissed off crazies to make a really big mess. One person..."

Beerslurpy, you're starting to grow on me.

And:
Hillbilly, those last 3 paragraphs are spot on.

C-

HonorsDaddy
June 24, 2005, 10:23 PM
Does the fact that we are openly discussing (and yes, we're openly discussing it no matter HOW oblique we're trying to be) armed rebellion on a board occupied by gun owners make anyone stop and think just how bad this decision really is?

We're talking about it. Someone is going to do it. That is a prediction you can count on. Maybe not this month, or even this year, but SOMEONE is going to realize that when he gets that notice he cannot fight peacefully and win. Where do things go from there?

If you enjoyed reading about "High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!