namelesstavern.net

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200612/CUL20061220a.html

I'm so glad I live in a state where we passed legislation to protect the rights of property owners where SCOTUS has previously failed to do so.

Maybe I'm just tired, but that made absolutly no sense to me.

The article or my comment?

The article.

Guy 1 owned development property.

Guy 2 wanted said property.

Guy 1 didn't wanna sell.

Guy 2 said fine then pay me $600,000 or I'll take your property by eminent domain.

Guy 1 said screw you.

Guy 2 went to the City Council and took the property by eminent domain.

Guy 1 went to court.

I understand what happened, I just meant that it really has gone to far. Looked like the court ruled in Guy 2's favor. Which sounds like extortion.

The Kizzy wrote:I understand what happened, I just meant that it really has gone to far. Looked like the court ruled in Guy 2's favor. Which sounds like extortion.

exactly

I thought eminent domain was just meant to be used to find parcels of land for hospitals, railroads, infrastructure type shiznat vital to the public

Tikker wrote:I thought eminent domain was just meant to be used to find parcels of land for hospitals, railroads, infrastructure type shiznat vital to the public

it is but dont forget the same bunch of liars and thieves that created the rule are the ones that are enforcing it.

Actually, the SCOTUS ruling was made to preserve State rights in writing their eminent domain laws. Many States quickly did so to preserve private property owners. NY is one that has not changed their laws. Honestly, I hope this happens more in the state. I have given up hope people will wake up and smell the coffee so I feel the only way to change is through violent upheaval. Once enough people's houses come down to build quick-e marts and walgreens there will be enough anger and frustration to cause a revolt. So I say, fuck that poor bastard. If he doesn't like it, move.

Eziekial wrote:Actually, the SCOTUS ruling was made to preserve State rights in writing their eminent domain laws. Many States quickly did so to preserve private property owners. NY is one that has not changed their laws. Honestly, I hope this happens more in the state. I have given up hope people will wake up and smell the coffee so I feel the only way to change is through violent upheaval. Once enough people's houses come down to build quick-e marts and walgreens there will be enough anger and frustration to cause a revolt. So I say, fuck that poor bastard. If he doesn't like it, move.

I wish I could agree.

I don't think even losing your home will be enough for people these days.

Well at least we agree on something harry. I dont think there is anything the government could do that would make people rise up and fight back.

Tikker wrote:I thought eminent domain was just meant to be used to find parcels of land for hospitals, railroads, infrastructure type shiznat vital to the public

Not really, the concept isn't limited to only real property and real estate. It could include intangible property such as manufacturing secrets ect. I've not confirmed it but was told that the slaughter of cattle due to the scare of mad cow disease was done via an invocation of eminent domain. Other applications could be the governments obtaining technology secrets for the development of militaristic purposes. What you are talking about is the most common uses and the normally accepted concept.

Eziekial wrote:Actually, the SCOTUS ruling was made to preserve State rights in writing their eminent domain laws. Many States quickly did so to preserve private property owners.

Of course in a previous case, Chappell v. United States, SCOTUS ruled that federal powers of eminent domain were not subject to the interests of the State. It would not surprise me if this case is later used to get around individual state laws when the federal government decides it wants to invoke eminent domain.

Real Public use (and by real I mean infrastructure or matters of public welfare and security) is one thing, the problem is when you add in the economic factors that eminent domain becomes a vessel of abuse and circumvention of civil rights.

In Kelo v. City of New London SCOTUS upheld the right of government to transfer property from a private owner, not into the hands of government but to a different private owner, with of course the limitation that it was subject to state laws. If however the federal government in exercising the power of eminent domain is not limited by state statutes regarding it's use then when it comes to the federal government there is not protection for the people.

The bottom line is the SCOTUS dropped the fucking ball and if it refuses to set one of it's all mighty precedences, then we NEED a constitutional amendment to do what our legislative branch is either unable or unwilling to do.

It would sure be nice if executive orders carried more weight (at least in this case). Bush signed one stating that:

"It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

I'm not bitter or infuriated by this issue though... no seriously~.

Rise up! Fight the man.... no seriously~