Forget the Flag issue...the Supreme Court just SCREWED you!

[Bullypulpit]

This has been blown way out of proportion. I don't agree with the basis for this decision either, but it leaves the door open for State legislatures to set extremely stringent standards, which is what they will do. The decision, as I read it, really says that this is an issue for states to deal with. I was horrified at first as well, especially as I am seeing the value of my home go down because a greedy developer is building a bunch of cheap houses right across the street from me. Then I read what the real gist of the decision was, and while I disagreed with the conclusion of the majority, I could see how easy it will be to set standards and provide ample protection for property owners. I doubt you will see massive land grabs as a result of this decision, most city councils and mayors won't want to engage in this sort of activity - it makes it very difficult to get re-elected.

acludem

Your naivete is touching. However, money is the mother's milk of politics, and real-estate developers have plenty to spread around in state legislatures. There will be no guidelines for development save those which benefit the developers.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm with Bully on this one... the proper decision would have been for SCOTUS to tell state/local government that the Bill of Rights keeps both private AND public entities from taking property on a whim.

 

[Bonnie]

Your naivete is touching. However, money is the mother's milk of politics, and real-estate developers have plenty to spread around in state legislatures. There will be no guidelines for development save those which benefit the developers.

Bully for once I am in total agreement with you. States and local municipalities will have free reign to blight anything they want to put up Home Depots and strip malls which will kill lower income and middle income families and mom&pop businesses. In my state alone there are 55 towns that are gearing up to do this...........This was a horrible ruling!!

 

[Bonnie]

Am I missing something here?---Did not one branch of the federal government just give state governments more power and influence over the rights of individuals. Still smacks of excessive government intrusion into our private lives to me. The feds delegating this "right to infringe' to the states will ONLY work for the good of a conservative if the states NEVER USE IT !

And this speaks to the one of the most important rights we have or had which is private property rights!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your naivete is touching. However, money is the mother's milk of politics, and real-estate developers have plenty to spread around in state legislatures. There will be no guidelines for development save those which benefit the developers.

Let's all repp bully for being honest on this issue! He's real stand up fella!

 

[no1tovote4]

If your state allows it like mine does, it is time to petition for a change in the Colorado Constitution so that it specifically disallows this type of seizure. This Referendum would pass with amazing ease and protect us in Colorado regardless of the SCOTUS decision.

 

[Bonnie]

by Tony DiPasquale

Well if there was ever a time to begin impeachment proceedings upon justices, now would be that time. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States effectively discarded our fundamental right to private property. Gone are the days when you could feel safe and secure in home.


I have been talking with people about Kelo v. New London for some time now, with the fear that the decision reached today would be the ultimate outcome, and I must say some of the responses I received were troubling at the least. 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011 (U.S., 2005) One woman I spoke with said that it was necessary to improve the economy in certain areas. Another, this one a middle-aged man, said that we cannot allow a few property owners to derail programs for the common good. For the common good? Now let me see, where have I heard that phrase before? Oh yeah, Karl Marx. (with a small mention to our beloved Senator Hillary Clinton who also made that quip when speaking against recent tax cuts).


Still, I wondered how it was that Justices of the Supreme Court, five to be exact, could rationalize that taking of private property in order to spur economic growth or increase tax revenues could be considered a “public use” under the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Luckily Justice Stevens, writing the majority opinion for the Court, clarified the rationale behind this decision when he wrote that:


“Not only was “use by the public” test too difficult to administer,

but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always

evolving needs of society.” Id. at 17.


Yep that about sums it up, Stevens seems to think that the Constitution is just to hard too constantly abide by, plus it should be a “living, breathing document” capable of dealing with changes in a society. Hmmm. Tell me again why the Framers gave us an amendment process? What happens if the First Amendment becomes too difficult to administer? Or that’s right Congress just passes McCain- Feingold.


Now in Justice Stevens defense, and I mean this tongue in cheek, he did state that property could not be taken from a private individual solely for the benefit of another private individual. Id. at 14. How comforting to know that Justice Stevens believes that there should be some constraints, but will there really be? What happens down the line when a wealthy individual desires someone’s quaint little cottage on the water’s edge? If he promises to raze the cottage and build a magnificent house would it be safe to assume that he would end up paying more in taxes, a condition that apparently satisfies the new and improved “public use” clause?


Well perhaps that last example is too unusual too worry about, but I bet Wilhelmina Dery would share my concern. For those unfamiliar with the case, Wilhelmina is one of the victims of this decision. Wilhelmina was born in one of the houses back in 1918 and has lived there her entire life, even after being married over 60 years ago. Id. at 11. Oh, did I mention that some of these houses have a beautiful waterfront view?


Apparently the dissenting parties in this case, which I might add this was a close 5-4 decision, share my concerns. In what appears to be an expression of shock with her fellow Justices, Justice O’Connor quipped, “…all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.” Id. at 45. I guess I am not the only one who sees the possibility for blatant corruption that this new ruling allows.



Heaven forbid that you live in a small town and do not get along with those on the town council. Worse yet, what happens if you are a businessman living in that town and your primary competitor is close friends with members of the town board? Of course no politicians would ever do something as low as using eminent domain to eliminate competition, would they?



Justice Thomas, also dissenting, remarked on the evolution of “public use” from what the Framers had intended to the lower threshold of “public necessity” or “public purpose” now embodied by our current court. Id. at 65. At one time, in order for the government to take your property an actual public use had to be derived such as a road, school, or other instance that the public itself would actually use. The new meaning is so vague that it can encompass virtually any reason to take the property of another. Or as Justice Thomas puts it:


This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold,

against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project

whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased

tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer

Corporation, is for a "public use.” Id. at 66.



If ever a time arose that called for action from the people of this country, this is it. We certainly cannot rely on the politicians who are more concerned with poll numbers than actually being leaders. A leader would speak out against this decision and remark that the Supreme Court is but an equal branch of government and thus has no power over the others. In other words, the Supreme Court decision here should be ignored, just as Plessy v. Ferguson should have been.


Now, a nation watches in fear each time a Wal-Mart, developer, or similar business decides to come to town. With this decision why should any business go through the expense and time of actually negotiating with homeowners to buy their land, especially when they will likely have to pay a premium for it. Instead, these businesses can simply march over to the politicians and have them do their dirty work, and likely pay less for the property than if they had to negotiate fairly. Thankfully, we can be assured that none of these politicians will succumb to possible promises of campaign donations.

http://www.americandaily.com/t-dipasquale-6-23-05.htm

 

[Bonnie]

If your state allows it like mine does, it is time to petition for a change in the Colorado Constitution so that it specifically disallows this type of seizure. This Referendum would pass with amazing ease and protect us in Colorado regardless of the SCOTUS decision.

That is really the only way to fight this now at the state level..

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1879919

This issues is really separating the naive from the evil over at du.

 

[no1tovote4]

That is really the only way to fight this now at the state level..

That or set precedent by impeaching them. Start by cross indexing, those that made the death penalty for minors decision by referring to international law rather than the Constitution and those that made this decision. If they overlap get them up on charges of Impeachment, even if they are not actually expelled it will send a direct and powerful message that they have gone too far.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

This is a scary thought. I fear for those in areas where fatcat developers would love to get their greasy paws on the property.

i don't fear for my home that much because of the massive shopping center (called Riverdale Center) nearby that has been built (and still going up with more stores every year). Anoka (where i live) is not that big in terms of land size, and it can't be all commercial or multi-family homes. Most of the residents here, live here because they wanted their own property, not living in a homeowner's assoc., because that is too close to living in an apartment.

Anoka history

Riverdale center is build on what was an open field (not farmland) just 7 years ago.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Fifth Amendment:

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.

For public use means for public use.
Not for private use.
Not for community tax use.

Have we effectively become the United States Socialist Union?

 

[Bonnie]

Fifth Amendment:

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.

For public use means for public use.
Not for private use.
Not for community tax use.

Have we effectively become the United States Socialist Union?

YES and it didn't happen overnight, it's been long in the making incrementally until we have what happened yesterday.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

YES and it didn't happen overnight, it's been long in the making incrementally until we have what happened yesterday.

So true. There have been many, many cases of private property disputes in the court system. Now it appears the only thing you can go to court over is the amount you are being paid for your property. Looks like individual land ownership rights are now officially signed, sealed, and banned.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Tony DiPasquale
June 23, 2005
(my highlights)

Well, if there was ever a time to begin impeachment proceedings upon justices, now would be that time. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States effectively discarded our fundamental right to private property. Gone are the days when you could feel safe and secure in home.

I have been talking with people about Kelo v. New London for some time now, with the fear that the decision reached today would be the ultimate outcome, and I must say some of the responses I received were troubling at the least. 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011 (U.S., 2005) One woman I spoke with said that it was necessary to improve the economy in certain areas. Another, this one a middle-aged man, said that we cannot allow a few property owners to derail programs for the common good. For the common good? Now let me see, where have I heard that phrase before? Oh yeah, Karl Marx. (with a small mention to our beloved Senator Hillary Clinton who also made that quip when speaking against recent tax cuts).

Still, I wondered how it was that Justices of the Supreme Court, five to be exact, could rationalize that taking of private property in order to spur economic growth or increase tax revenues could be considered a "public use" under the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Luckily Justice Stevens, writing the majority opinion for the Court, clarified the rationale behind this decision when he wrote that:


"Not only was "use by the public" test too difficult to administer, but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society." Id. at 17.

Yep that about sums it up, Stevens seems to think that the Constitution is just to hard too constantly abide by, plus it should be a "living, breathing document" capable of dealing with changes in a society. Hmmm. Tell me again why the Framers gave us an amendment process? What happens if the First Amendment becomes too difficult to administer? Or that's right Congress just passes McCain- Feingold.

Now in Justice Stevens defense, and I mean this tongue in cheek, he did state that property could not be taken from a private individual solely for the benefit of another private individual. Id. at 14. How comforting to know that Justice Stevens believes that there should be some constraints, but will there really be? What happens down the line when a wealthy individual desires someone's quaint little cottage on the water's edge? If he promises to raze the cottage and build a magnificent house would it be safe to assume that he would end up paying more in taxes, a condition that apparently satisfies the new and improved "public use" clause?

Well perhaps that last example is too unusual too worry about, but I bet Wilhelmina Dery would share my concern. For those unfamiliar with the case, Wilhelmina is one of the victims of this decision. Wilhelmina was born in one of the houses back in 1918 and has lived there her entire life, even after being married over 60 years ago. Id. at 11. Oh, did I mention that some of these houses have a beautiful waterfront view?

Apparently the dissenting parties in this case, which I might add this was a close 5-4 decision, share my concerns. In what appears to be an expression of shock with her fellow Justices, Justice O'Connor quipped, "...all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded." Id. at 45. I guess I am not the only one who sees the possibility for blatant corruption that this new ruling allows.

Heaven forbid that you live in a small town and do not get along with those on the town council. Worse yet, what happens if you are a businessman living in that town and your primary competitor is close friends with members of the town board? Of course no politicians would ever do something as low as using eminent domain to eliminate competition, would they?

Justice Thomas, also dissenting, remarked on the evolution of "public use" from what the Framers had intended to the lower threshold of "public necessity" or "public purpose" now embodied by our current court. Id. at 65. At one time, in order for the government to take your property an actual public use had to be derived such as a road, school, or other instance that the public itself would actually use. The new meaning is so vague that it can encompass virtually any reason to take the property of another. Or as Justice Thomas puts it:


This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use." Id. at 66.

If ever a time arose that called for action from the people of this country, this is it. We certainly cannot rely on the politicians who are more concerned with poll numbers than actually being leaders. A leader would speak out against this decision and remark that the Supreme Court is but an equal branch of government and thus has no power over the others. In other words, the Supreme Court decision here should be ignored, just as Plessy v. Ferguson should have been.

Now, a nation watches in fear each time a Wal-Mart, developer, or similar business decides to come to town. With this decision why should any business go through the expense and time of actually negotiating with homeowners to buy their land, especially when they will likely have to pay a premium for it. Instead, these businesses can simply march over to the politicians and have them do their dirty work, and likely pay less for the property than if they had to negotiate fairly. Thankfully, we can be assured that none of these politicians will succumb to possible promises of campaign donations.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dipasquale/050623

 

[Annie]

The good thing about a decision like this, it can invigorate the electorate, something that even 9/11 failed to do. One thing both conservatives and liberals agree on if wanting to keep our property:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/218

Here's a round-up of similar attempts throughout the country, which this ruling will definately impact.

 

[Hobbit]

I think we should take those 5 judges' houses under eminent domain and use the land to build a headquarters for a property rights interest group, as that would certainly serve the public much better than those 5 (don't swear, don't swear, don't swear) judges.

 

[Annie]

I think we should take those 5 judges' houses under eminent domain and use the land to build a headquarters for a property rights interest group, as that would certainly serve the public much better than those 5 (don't swear, don't swear, don't swear) judges.

I heard a suggestion that Georgetown be declared 'blighted', see if that doesn't change a few votes?

 

[acludem]

Once again, the ruling allows states to define what "public use" actually means. In this case, the court ruled that Connecticuts current definition, or lack thereof was Constitutional. I have already said, I find the court's reasoning to be dubious at best, but the majority's decision s Many states already have in their laws and/or Constitutions strongly worded definitions of what "public use" means in terms of eminent domain. This decision does not overturn those guidelines. There will be an outcry amongst voters and legislators will listen. You will see in initiative states, ballot issues to strictly define what "public use" is, and I guarantee you the Supreme Court won't overturn those standards. In other states, the legislatures will act to set strict standards. The ruling was actually based, by the way, on another decision in a previous SCOTUS decision written by none other than Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.

Here's an interesting, non-partisan analysis of the decision:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/supreme-court-eminent-domain-ruling.php


acludem

 

[Annie]

Once again, the ruling allows states to define what "public use" actually means. In this case, the court ruled that Connecticuts current definition, or lack thereof was Constitutional. I have already said, I find the court's reasoning to be dubious at best, but the majority's decision s Many states already have in their laws and/or Constitutions strongly worded definitions of what "public use" means in terms of eminent domain. This decision does not overturn those guidelines. There will be an outcry amongst voters and legislators will listen. You will see in initiative states, ballot issues to strictly define what "public use" is, and I guarantee you the Supreme Court won't overturn those standards. In other states, the legislatures will act to set strict standards. The ruling was actually based, by the way, on another decision in a previous SCOTUS decision written by none other than Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.

Here's an interesting, non-partisan analysis of the decision:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/supreme-court-eminent-domain-ruling.php


acludem

I will check out, I always do. May I ask you though, weren't you perplexed that the ACLU wasn't on the side of the 'little guy', the homeowner? Wouldn't you expect that bastion of freedom on the side of all the others? Why not, do you suppose?