Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

9 states say eminent domain unconstitutional!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by cpileri, Jun 24, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cpileri

    cpileri Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,422
    According to this:
    "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. "

    So, which ones are they?

    That significantly narrows down the choice of retirement locales?

    C-
     
  2. pax

    pax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,762
    Location:
    Washington state
    Washington is on the good-guy list.

    pax
     
  3. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    That's nice. This keeps coming up. So what? Deep Pockets Corporation unleashes their flock of highly amoral Assault Lawyers and the state provisions fall to the extant SCOTUS decision, which is the actual law of the land now. The end and, hey, thx for playing. :(
     
  4. BeLikeTrey

    BeLikeTrey Guest

    South Carolina on the good guy list!

    Notice strong 2nd amendment states don't have this problem so much? anyone? anyone?

    Bueler? Bueler?
     
  5. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    Every state has something like the 5th amendment in their state constitution, and as god-awful as this ruling was, state courts are perfectly free to read their state 5th amendment analogs as prohibiting this sort of abuse, even if they're identically worded to the federal amendment.

    And this awful ruling doesn't change that.

    That's why, for instance, the federal courts can refuse to admit that the 2nd guarantees an individual right, and yet a state court like Vermont's can enforce the same right at the state level.

    State bills of rights operate as additional constraints on state governments, beyond what those parts of the Bill of Rights the courts admit are "incorporated" do.
     
  6. HonorsDaddy

    HonorsDaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Yes they do - but -

    this problem will rear its ugly head when a state interprets it properly and the developer appeals. Once it hits the federal court, the SCOTUS precedent is brought up, it applies, and faster than you can say "Sorry ma'am, its not your house anymore", granny is out on the street.
     
  7. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    No, the situation isn't that bad, yet. If an eminent domain action was struck down as unconstitutional under the state constitution, then even if it goes into federal court for some reason, the state SC's reading of that state constitution IS still binding.

    This is because the confiscation is being done by a state government, which has to obey BOTH constitutions, and can't do something if either says it's prohibited.

    For instance, the majority cited the Poletown ruling here in Michigan to defend their point of view, despite the fact that it was overturned in the state supreme court last year. We here in Michigan are still, thanks to that ruling last year, protected from that abuse for now, because it was based on the state constitution.

    Now, I won't deny that there's some potential for the federal courts to eventually start over-riding state constitutions on this matter, but it would represent yet another increment of abuse, and is not implied by the ruling we're discussing.

    So you can relax about that prospect for a couple of years, at least.
     
  8. HonorsDaddy

    HonorsDaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2005
    Messages:
    329
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Wait - im confused now

    Didnt Kelo involve the state court saying that the property couldnt be taken?
     
  9. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    Under the federal 5th amendment, yes.
     
  10. Jeeper

    Jeeper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,062
    Location:
    Mesa, AZ
    Slightly misleading topic title.
     
  11. dolanp

    dolanp Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Texas
    Well some Texas lawmakers were talking about amending our state constitution to prevent this new ruling from allowing it to happen here, so I guess that means for the moment we are not protected against it.
     
  12. yinyangdc

    yinyangdc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Texas better enact it quickly, before Freeport acts.
     
  13. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    I've read more. I've asked a couple attorneys... All it takes to void any state opposition is one well handled suit. Like I said, this is a polite fiction and the Kelo decision is, in fact, the last word. While it may indeed take a couple years for another suit to wend its way thru the court and standardize it across the board it will happen, just as quickjly as the assault lawyers can drive it thru.
     
  14. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    To quote myself, (A bad habit, I suppose!)

    That's more or less what I meant; State protection will serve until the Court decides, in another case, that it should be over-ridden. We've got a window of a couple of years to do something about this problem, before the other shoe falls. I think the only real solution is a constitutional amendment.
     
  15. JB in SC

    JB in SC Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Elected city and county officials that pursue this type of land grab should be dealt with at the next election. In no uncertain terms they should understand that they will be voted out of office.
     
  16. Augustus

    Augustus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Tx
    They have been using it for awhile in Texas. Look at Texas Motor Speedway and in Arlington for Jerrys new stadium.
     
  17. Don Gwinn

    Don Gwinn Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,385
    Location:
    Virden, IL
    I'm not trying to be totally depressed, and I don't have any better ideas, but honestly, what's the use of an Amendment?

    The 5th Amendment is already pretty clear. These five justices literally decided to read the words "public use" as "public or private use, as long as you can imagine some public benefit of some kind." I'm not exaggerating, that explanation is there in the oral arguments and in the decision.

    So we amend the Constitution and put in an explicit prohibition on ED takings for private use--so what? Won't they simply redefine the terms in that amendment too? This is like arguing with God. You tell Him the sky is blue, He tells you it's bright yellow. You insist that it's blue. He tells you to look up at the sky, and what do you know? It IS bright yellow!
    Of course it is, because he can make it whatever color he wants. Who can stop him?

    Truly, I'm not trying to be a jerk, here. I just got done explaining this to my wife, who was paying no attention until I told her about it, and between the two of us we got pretty worked up about it.
     
  18. Logistics

    Logistics Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    191
    Location:
    midwest
    >>>You insist that it's blue. He tells you to look up at the sky, and what do you know? It IS bright yellow!
    Of course it is, because he can make it whatever color he wants. Who can stop him?<<<

    Thats because 2 + 2 is starting to equal 5.... :uhoh:
     
  19. Brett Bellmore

    Brett Bellmore Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    979
    Location:
    Capac, Michigan
    Yeah, but generally speaking, it takes them a while to work their way up to saying that black is white. I mean, look at this case; Once they started the erosion, they took decades to reach the point they achieved this week.

    Ratify a very flatly worded, utterly clear amendment, and it will indeed have it's effect, for at least a while. And then we'll do it all over again. Eternal vigilance, and all that: You can't expect to win your liberty forever from a one time effort.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page