High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Contact your congresscritters...I'm going to write mine RIGHT NOW...
 
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.
 
I'd be [understatement]surprised[/understatement] to see congress taking meaningful steps to reduce the scope of government power.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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????
 
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,
Click to expand...
 
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:
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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)
 
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?
 
And still people find excuses for a corrupt and broken system...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.:

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.
Click to expand...
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
 
We could ammend the constitution to "fix" the problem.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Yup, this is a helluva day...

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/nationw...us_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...
 
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.
Click to expand...
I have only one response to such an idea.

Come and take them!
 
Lets be clear, this isn't the "government" in general, this is our out-of-control judicial branch.
Click to expand...

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.
 
What's the Big Whoop?

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
High Court Rules Gov'ts Can Seize Property
Replies
8
Views
425
ravinraven
R
D
  • Locked
SC Eminent Domain Case
2 3
Replies
56
Views
3K
2nd Amendment
2
5
  • Locked
Once again, Why McClintock should be CA's Gov.
Replies
7
Views
591
50 Shooter
5
D
  • Locked
Latest property snatch: Missouri
Replies
15
Views
855
bogie
B
H
  • Locked
Huge Eminent Domain Victory in Ohio!
Replies
10
Views
919
Diomed
D
Back
Top