High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property

[Bruce H]

I don't see what the problem is. This exact senario has been a smashing success in Zimbabwe.

 

[Flyboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

the topic is NOT gun related

Don't be too sure about that...

USSC Ruling Could Shut Down Gun Dealers & Shooting Ranges

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jwmoore]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sad. I can kinda see seizing property for roads or gov't buildings, kinda, but not for private development.

 

[enfield303]

Very dangerous precedent :banghead:

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

It's 1774 all over again.

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.



- pd

 

[Refirignis]

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.

 

[Sam Adams]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I hope you're wrong, Werewolf. I fear you are correct. :banghead:

 

[torpid]

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.




.