Private Property decision in us supreme court

[MomurdA]

private property rights in the us are done, in case you didnt know. the supreme court voted 5--4 to allow the gov'mint to seize your property to give it to large developers for more tax revenue. I believe this is thte most important ruling in many many years, and is the death knell for this country. Any thoughts, especially for those who AGREE with this ridiculous decision?

[dean_martin]

private property rights in the us are done, in case you didnt know. the supreme court voted 5--4 to allow the gov'mint to seize your property to give it to large developers for more tax revenue. I believe this is thte most important ruling in many many years, and is the death knell for this country. Any thoughts, especially for those who AGREE with this ridiculous decision?

I posted the NYTimes article on this decision earlier. Of course my title didn't say much about the substance of the post. It just warned folks to spruce up their home.

[Duds]

I really can't believe they passed this. Even more, I can't even believe it was even an issue up for voting!!!

I'm truly speechless

private property rights in the us are done, in case you didnt know. the supreme court voted 5--4 to allow the gov'mint to seize your property to give it to large developers for more tax revenue. I believe this is thte most important ruling in many many years, and is the death knell for this country. Any thoughts, especially for those who AGREE with this ridiculous decision?

[Resident Loser]

...the old "home being your castle" myth, eh? I mean they could always "condemn" your property for public works, but this "private enterprise in the public good" BS is definitely stretching the concept of eminent domain a bit further than any strict constructionist could possibly tolerate...

This ain't gonna' be good...I can see BIG problems ahead...I hesitate to even mention w-a-c-o, but what can these @$$hole b@stards in DC possibly be thinking...are they thinkin' like Lincoln and trying to foment another civil war...there are an awful lot of folks out there just lookin' for any excuse.

All I can say is, write your senators and congressmen...remember it's "of the people, by the people, for the people". F*CK the suits!!!

jimHJJ(...GW, Tommy Jeff and the boys must really be in the spin cycle over this...)

[piece-it pete]

I always hated those folks who spelled America with a K, but...

So long, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Welcome Land of the, well, maybe, a little free, well, enough to make us think so anyway, and home of the, well, really nice people who haven't a clue and don't really care as long as we're ok.

I've said it repeatedly, the judiciary is out of control and needs to be smacked down - HARD.

To rehash a few quotes:

"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed."

"It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation. "

"The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."

Thomas Jefferson

Pete

[dean_martin]

I always hated those folks who spelled America with a K, but...

So long, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Welcome Land of the, well, maybe, a little free, well, enough to make us think so anyway, and home of the, well, really nice people who haven't a clue and don't really care as long as we're ok.

I've said it repeatedly, the judiciary is out of control and needs to be smacked down - HARD.

To rehash a few quotes:

"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed."

"It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation. "

"The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."

Thomas Jefferson

Pete

life time appointments vs. judicial elections

I prefer judicial elections. But pure, partisan elections have their negatives too. Our state's pure, partisan election system for judges has come under recent attack. Those attacks are based on the huge amounts of money going into these elections to ostensibly influence or control the courts. A middle-of-the-road approach is probably needed, but I still like it better than life-time appointments.

With the recent attacks on the federal judiciary, why hasn't there been a push for a Constitutional amendment to change the selection process? Is it because there's an unwillingness to give up appointment powers? It seems that when a problem or issue arises that ONLY an amendment can address, there's no call for an amendment.

[piece-it pete]

Hmmm we've got elected judges here in Ohio too and it's a real mess, they want to go back to appointments!

Last election cycle there was a commercial, showed the greek lady Justice holding her scales, peeking lol.

Although I use Jeffersons' statements often I don't TOTALLY agree. Since the judges are appointed by the chief rep of the people, the Pres, and confirmed by the Senate there is/should be some reflection of the people in there somewhere.

So it as always comes down to Franklins' statement, "A democracy, if you can keep it".

It never ceases to amaze me, how perceptive those guys were. It always ends up being OUR fault for not being astute about protecting our hard earned freedom.

So it comes down to the folks we vote for. Partisan? Me?



Well yep. Even if the Reps get a judge in since Bork they don't dare nominate real cons. I mean "real" not nec. Dem or Rep. We've got to nominate folks with no real track record. Then they get in, grow a social conscience and trash the Constitution. Aarrgh that makes me angry, Reps or Dems.

Activist judges do far more damage than constructionists, we could use judges who leave to the legislature what belongs there, and leave to the states what is contractually theirs.

Jims' got it right imho, time to lay into the Senators and the Pres. It won't do any good, though, if the next time a nominee comes up with real conservative track record everyone screams and moans about it.

Just my .02.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Well I'm downright confused.

Big surprise!

I thought the Constitution only applied to the Federal gov't.

Perhaps one of those legal types could clue me in to this - 'cause if so the Dems are right and shifting my paradigm may blow the clutch!

What am I missing?

Pete

[ericl]

hope they succeed

[dean_martin]

Well I'm downright confused.

Big surprise!

I thought the Constitution only applied to the Federal gov't.

Perhaps one of those legal types could clue me in to this - 'cause if so the Dems are right and shifting my paradigm may blow the clutch!

What am I missing?

Pete

The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment has been used to apply many provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States. Most state constitutions also include eminent domain provisions as well. You take your chances as to whether you argue that the "taking" violates your state constitution or the US Constitution or both. State constitutions generally grant political subdivisions (cities and counties) the power of eminent domain.

Back to your original point. The doctrine that applies many of the Bill of Rights' provisions to the states is called the doctrine of incorporation. However, the process through the years has been selective. Some rights in the amendments apply to the states and some don't depending on whether the court addressing the question at the time feels that the right at issue is fundamental. For example, the 7th Amendment provides the right to trial by jury in all civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $20. However, this right is not deemed as fundamental as the right to trial by jury in criminal cases. That is why a 6 person jury can decide a federal civil case instead of a 12 person jury as in a criminal case. That is why the number of jurors on a state court jury in a civil case can vary from state to state. That is why some states don't require a jury's decision in a civil case to be unanimous.

The doctrine of incorporation was applied to the last clause of the 5th Amendment - the takings clause - in the late 1800's.

As a historian, Pete, you might be surprised by some of the arguments for and against selective incorporation and its development through US Supreme Court decisions. Justice Hugo Black stood firmly for "total incorporation" of the first 8 amendments rather than selective incorporation. His argument, based on the legislative history of the passing of the 14th Amendment, was that the first 8 amendments were incorporated into the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment word for word. This stance served as the basis for his dissent in Griswold v. CT, which established our right to privacy. The oversimplified version of his argument was that if the Bill of Rights didn't specifically set out a right to privacy from gov't action then how could that right be applied to the states. But, selective incorporation on a case by case basis was the approach taken by the majority. It's been a long time since I took Constitutional Law, but the doctrine of incorporation was one of the interesting subjects that stayed with me.

[trollgirl]

...for as we slide ever more rapidly into being a police state, can you not see the time soon coming when if you say the wrong thing...ooops!...there goes your house?! 'nuff said

Laz

[piece-it pete]

I've thought a lot about this, and it adds fuel to the notion that we are on the downward side of our peak as a free society.

When Jefferson said "...engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them" the special gov'ts he's talking about are state and local. Many of the founders were absolutely opposed to "one gov't" and the strict way federal power is limited in the Constitution shows that the majority agreed with them.

If the "conservative" block in the court and in this country, the supposed self-proclaimed protectors of the Constitution who say they don't legislate from the bench fall in step with this power grab, well, the fox is loose in the henhouse.

Me, I'm calling my state rep to complain and ask what he proposes we do to protect ourselves. Being that the individual in question is Dennis Kusinich, I do not expect a response, but once I move here shortly I'll be out of his district and should.

It's a LOT easier to get a response from a state rep than a federal Congressman.

So I agree with the decision of my distinguished colleges from across the isle court-wise. It is still up to us.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

Hello everyone!

Just a little followup - here in Ohio they are passing a law at the state level that is halting eminent domain proceedings that take property from one private owner and give it to another private owner. It passed unanimously in the state Senate and House of Reps. The article mentioned that many other states are doing the same.

Interestingly the city gov'ts are up in arms about this. They are experimenting with local laws that get around the state law. It's gonna end up in court.

Pete

[dean_martin]

Hello everyone!

Just a little followup - here in Ohio they are passing a law at the state level that is halting eminent domain proceedings that take property from one private owner and give it to another private owner. It passed unanimously in the state Senate and House of Reps. The article mentioned that many other states are doing the same.

Interestingly the city gov'ts are up in arms about this. They are experimenting with local laws that get around the state law. It's gonna end up in court.

Pete

That's nuthin', Pete. I heard Vermont is seceding from the Union.

[GMichael]

That's nuthin', Pete. I heard Vermont is seceding from the Union.

Can they take NY with them when they go?

[piece-it pete]

:lmao:

Pete

[dean_martin]

Well...some Vermonters are discussing it.

In Vermont, a revolution to secede has devotees
By David Gram, Associated Press | October 30, 2005

MONTPELIER -- A car parked outside the State House bore a bumper sticker saying, ''Regime change begins at home."

Inside, about 100 Vermonters gathered in the House chamber for the Vermont Independence Convention -- devoted to Vermont creating a regime of its own.

If participants have their way, the state whose former governor was laughed out of the 2004 presidential race after the infamous Iowa scream is going to take what some call its wackiness and others call its sanity in a crazy world and go home.

Go home to the 14 years in the late 18th century when Vermont was neither a British colony nor one of the original 13 states but was an independent republic.

Texas gets more notice as a Lone Star State, but Vermont shares with it the distinction of having gone it alone for a while. Friday's event was steeped in that history, and an urge to try it again.

Ethan Allen, who led the Green Mountain Boys to take Fort Ticonderoga from the British in 1775, was among those in attendance, in the person of actor Jim Hogue. Ticonderoga fell without a shot fired, and it was agreed Friday that the new revolution would have to be nonviolent as well.

''Let history record that we, still carrying on without firing a shot, brought to their knees all those who, in the name of security made enemies, in the name of patriotism wrought treason and tyranny, in the name of peace made war, and in the name of liberty would turn us into slaves," Hogue's Allen said.

But it wasn't all history. A lot of it was strategizing and sharing ideas on how Vermont independence might be achieved again, and why it should. This is a revolution with a website and a blog.

''Vermont still provides a communitarian alternative to the dehumanized mass production, mass consumption, narcissistic lifestyle which pervades most of the United States," said Thomas Naylor, a former Duke University economics professor who retired to Vermont and has written a book called ''The Vermont Manifesto -- The Second Vermont Republic."

''Vermont is smaller, more rural, more democratic, less violent, less commercial, more egalitarian, and more independent than most states," Naylor said. ''It offers itself as a kinder, gentler metaphor for a nation obsessed with money, power, size, speed, greed, and fear of terrorism."

Not everybody at Friday's convention favored secession. There seemed to be a widespread assumption of Vermont exceptionalism, that Vermont is better than most of the rest of the country, but at least one person at the event said that is a good reason for the state to stay in the Union.

Vermont's influence has helped make the country better, said Benson Scotch, former head of the American Civil Liberties Union office in Montpelier. The state was the first to ban slavery, in the 1777 Constitution that made it an independent Republic. It was a leader in the Underground Railroad, he added.

Scotch said he favored a ''secession in spirit" but, ''If we took our intellectual marbles and went home . . . the rest of the country would be worse off. The rest of the country needs us."

[GMichael]

I know that I need them. Where else would I get maple surrup for my pancakes? They have to stay. If they go, then they have to take NY too.

[dean_martin]

Hopefully Vermont will join NAFTA so you won't have to pay a tariff on importing the maple syrup. You can't switch to cane syrup because the sugar cane fields in Louisiana and Florida were wiped out by hurricanes. Hmmm...we may have to develop an alternative source of syrup like...CORN!

[Justlisten2]

Can they take NY with them when they go?

Take Pennsylvania with you too....PLEASE!!!!

[GMichael]

No sugar either? Man, this is getting bad. I'll have to trade my pancakes in for something healthy. Say it aint so.