If the state of New York passed a law in which the state seized ownership of all private businesses and corporate offices, who would stop them"?

[shockedcanadian]

Let's call it for what it is, New York is not capitalist nor a district based on the Rule of Law, Due Process and equal justice.

Considering the massive shift I have seen in my lifetime. A shift that would not be tolerated 30 years ago, it is not at all outlandish to think that the state won't at some point take the extreme position as in the title. We saw what happened during covid, we see how they disregard legal norms, this is not at all a large step.

In fact, I would imagine smart money would be on it occurring sometime within the next 25-30 years,

When it does, who will stop them?

 

[White 6]

Let's call it for what it is, New York is not capitalist nor a district based on the Rule of Law, Due Process and equal justice.

Considering the massive shift I have seen in my lifetime. A shift that would not be tolerated 30 years ago, it is not at all outlandish to think that the state won't at some point take the extreme position as in the title. We saw what happened during covid, we see how they disregard legal norms, this is not at all a large step.

In fact, I would imagine smart money would be on it occurring sometime within the next 25-30 years,

When it does, who will stop them?

Federal law enforcement, if not taken within the law.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Let's call it for what it is, New York is not capitalist nor a district based on the Rule of Law, Due Process and equal justice.

Considering the massive shift I have seen in my lifetime. A shift that would not be tolerated 30 years ago, it is not at all outlandish to think that the state won't at some point take the extreme position as in the title. We saw what happened during covid, we see how they disregard legal norms, this is not at all a large step.

In fact, I would imagine smart money would be on it occurring sometime within the next 25-30 years,

When it does, who will stop them?

Only common sense. Which apparently, seems to be in short supply north of the border as well.
So what's with the fantasy scenario? Nobody is proposing doing anything of the sort.

 

[skews13]

Let's call it for what it is, New York is not capitalist nor a district based on the Rule of Law, Due Process and equal justice.

Considering the massive shift I have seen in my lifetime. A shift that would not be tolerated 30 years ago, it is not at all outlandish to think that the state won't at some point take the extreme position as in the title. We saw what happened during covid, we see how they disregard legal norms, this is not at all a large step.

In fact, I would imagine smart money would be on it occurring sometime within the next 25-30 years,

When it does, who will stop them?

A court ruling is the rule of law. If you lose. you don't get decide if and when you want to pay.

It's how we do things here in America.

And speaking of asset seizure

Sis Tish James ready to seize Trump properties to pay disgorgement penalty! PAH-POW Bae!

Every time I read anything related to Trump having to pay off a half-billion disgorgement judgment (that accrues daily interest at 9% for every day he doesn’t pay), I feel a Cheshire Cat smile creeping along my face. And no—no! He won't be able to use...

www.dailykos.com

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Let's call it for what it is, New York is not capitalist nor a district based on the Rule of Law, Due Process and equal justice.

Considering the massive shift I have seen in my lifetime. A shift that would not be tolerated 30 years ago, it is not at all outlandish to think that the state won't at some point take the extreme position as in the title. We saw what happened during covid, we see how they disregard legal norms, this is not at all a large step.

In fact, I would imagine smart money would be on it occurring sometime within the next 25-30 years,

When it does, who will stop them?

The US Govt. would, of course. Not that New York would ever do such a thing--they like money, just like the rest of us.
All your Chicken-Little histrionics aside...New York is highly Capitalist..and highly regulated. When you run afoul of their regulations, they make you pay.
If you are referring to the Trump kerfuffle, due-process was observed and rule of law followed albeit that they changed the law to conform to their desires....equal justice has ALWAYS been a non-starter..even in Canada eh?
Usually it's the poor who get the short and shitty end--that it's Trump and his cronies this time...causes me no upset at all~

 

[shockedcanadian]

Only common sense. Which apparently, seems to be in short supply north of the border as well.
So what's with the fantasy scenario? Nobody is proposing doing anything of the sort.

This ruling is the most Soviet-style ruling I have ever seen in a Western nation. This is economic assassination of a leading political representative of a major party. In effect, they are destroying the opposition of their Party.

If Bernie Sanders was beating their candidate they would have done the same.

This woman before she was elected that she was going to destroy Trump. It doesn't surprise me nowadays though, how rabid and unAmerican even Americans are.

Some sound like defendants at the Nuremberg trial who justified their actions by saying, "hey it was the law!"

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

This ruling is the most Soviet-style ruling I have ever seen in a Western nation. This is economic assassination of a leading political representative of a major party. In effect, they are destroying the opposition of their Party.

If Bernie Sanders was beating their candidate they would have done the same.

This woman before she was elected that she was going to destroy Trump. It doesn't surprise me nowadays though, how rabid and unAmerican even Americans are.

Some sound like defendants at the Nuremberg trial who justified their actions by saying, "hey it was the law!"

Oh jeez, how did I know this was going to end up back at Trump?
One corrupt man that got away with fraud for decades and his company got pinched.
Sorry, I don't see it happening to anyone else.
All this means is that for the moment, no one is above the law.

 

[sparky]

peekaboo.....~S~

 

[BackAgain]

I’m also not clear on what our Canadian friend is contemplating.

It sort of seems like the concern is that NY State (which has tilted so far to the left that it may eventually become a different type of government) may eventually try to become something more or less akin to communist?

If that’s the concern, I don’t share it. For that to happen, the U.S. Government would have to permit it. But since it violates Constitutional requirements, I don’t believe the Federal Government could allow it.

If the U.S. did permit it, we’d be in an even deeper pile of shit, anyway.

 

[sparky]

I’m also not clear on what our Canadian friend is contemplating.

Perhaps he sees it clearer from afar BA

~S~

 

[BackAgain]

Perhaps he sees it clearer from afar BA

~S~

“What” he sees is the question.

 

[sparky]

“What” he sees is the question.

He sees us loosing our freedoms to state control BA

~S~

 

[BackAgain]

He sees us loosing our freedoms to state control BA

~S~

I don’t think that’s exactly what he meant, sparks.

 

[sparky]

I don’t think that’s exactly what he meant, sparks.

Then we'll wait and see BA.....~S~

 

[shockedcanadian]

I don’t think that’s exactly what he meant, sparks.

It is generally what I mean.

You have state laws, fine, but they all must follow your Constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore, they are in fact setting an entirely new precedent. In fact, this ruling and application of this law has NEVER, in the 250 years of your nations history been applied in this manner.

No victim. No complaint from a victim. People testifying that they were happy with the terms and the outcome and STILL they do this to Trump. It isn't just the far-left behind them I'm sure.

If anyone believes this is all just some random coincidence because Trump is the one man this new application met the criteria to be applied, I have a bridge for sale. He certainly must win in an appeal.

 

[BackAgain]

Then we'll wait and see BA.....~S~

Nah. Chances are good that we will both forget this thread sooner than Biden forgets his job title (again).

 

[BackAgain]

It is generally what I mean.

You have state laws, fine, but they all must follow your Constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore, they are in fact setting an entirely new precedent. In fact, this ruling and application of this law has NEVER, in the 250 years of your nations history been applied in this manner.

No victim. No complaint from a victim. People testifying that they were happy with the terms and the outcome and STILL they do this to Trump. It isn't just the far-left behind them I'm sure.

If anyone believes this is all just some random coincidence because Trump is the one man this new application met the criteria to be applied, I have a bridge for sale. He certainly must win in an appeal.

Ok. Your original post seemed to be more concerned with property rights.

But my previous response stand just the same.

NY has no legal ability to seize private property (barring a particularized lawsuit with penalties or absent a proper claim of eminent domain). For the State to even try it absent those things would run afoul of its Constitutional duties to provide a Republican form of government and equal rights to its citizens.

 

[Magnus]

Federal law enforcement, if not taken within the law.

Shhh…don’t confuse him with facts.

 

[shockedcanadian]

You guys have sanctuary cities, free money to illegals, photo I.D, student debt wiped out in spite of the S.C Ruling against it and you somehow believe a state would not take such extreme steps at some point in the future?

What if they just ordered a select group of businesses after going to court? Say, 25-30% of the "undesirably owned" businesses?

You guys need to understand history and our species. We saw what happened during covid, we are seeing a major shift and it isn't to MORE liberty for citizens, is it?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

It is generally what I mean.

You have state laws, fine, but they all must follow your Constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore, they are in fact setting an entirely new precedent. In fact, this ruling and application of this law has NEVER, in the 250 years of your nations history been applied in this manner.

No victim. No complaint from a victim. People testifying that they were happy with the terms and the outcome and STILL they do this to Trump. It isn't just the far-left behind them I'm sure.

If anyone believes this is all just some random coincidence because Trump is the one man this new application met the criteria to be applied, I have a bridge for sale. He certainly must win in an appeal.

It is a basic principle of law in this country..and in yours...that society is the victim whenever a crime is committed. Because all sides involved were content at how Trump's deliberate misstatements worked out does NOT exempt him from the legal consequences of his actions. Those laws are in place partly to provide a level playing field..by gaining access to funds by lying..that he would not have had access to had he told the truth..Trump cheated--and that's against the law.
That you can argue that many rich people routinely do this and get away with it..I believe that to be true BTW..is irrelevant in law.
Yes, they changed the law, with malice aforethought, to catch Trump. Is that slimy? Yes.
Does that mean that Trump did not break the law and knowingly misrepresent his assets?
No..it does not.
He will not win on appeal..as the legal principles are actually quite simple. There simply are no grounds.