OT: Say goodbye to your property rights...

Post by Keeper of the Purple Twilight
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_propert
y
So not only can the government throw you out onto the street if your
property might be useful to the public, but also to any private
developer who happens by.

Entirely consistent with the current administration.

Keeper of the Purple Twilight

2005-06-23 17:45:58 UTC

Entirely consistent with the current administration.

Most of the true conservatives on the court voted *against* this.

--
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

Ender

2005-06-23 23:41:49 UTC

Entirely consistent with the current administration.

Most of the true conservatives on the court voted *against* this.

And all the liberal Justices (David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen
Breyer) voted for it.

Sparky Spartacus

2005-06-24 15:09:46 UTC

Entirely consistent with the current administration.

Most of the true conservatives on the court voted *against* this.

Good for them!

Ender

2005-06-24 18:51:35 UTC

Entirely consistent with the current administration.

Most of the true conservatives on the court voted *against* this.

Good for them!

You're so f**kin' clueless. Maybe if you did some rudimentary research
before posting, you'd know that all the liberal justices voted in the
majority on this case.
(I guess it's time for you to make some stupid Kool-Aid comment)

Sparky Spartacus

2005-06-26 02:20:25 UTC

Post by Ender

Entirely consistent with the current administration.

Most of the true conservatives on the court voted *against* this.

Good for them!

You're so f**kin' clueless. Maybe if you did some rudimentary research
before posting, you'd know that all the liberal justices voted in the
majority on this case.

What are you blithering about?

Post by Ender
(I guess it's time for you to make some stupid Kool-Aid comment)

Nah, you've taken care of it for now.

Ender

2005-06-29 00:12:15 UTC

Post by Ender

Entirely consistent with the current administration.

Most of the true conservatives on the court voted *against* this.

Good for them!

You're so f**kin' clueless. Maybe if you did some rudimentary research
before posting, you'd know that all the liberal justices voted in the
majority on this case.

What are you blithering about?

Like I said, CLUELESS.

ray o'hara

2005-06-23 18:11:43 UTC

the shrub when he was governor and a minor owner of the texas rangers was
involved in doing that when they stole someones ranch to build the new
ballpar in arlington.

m***@earthlink.net

2005-06-25 17:24:54 UTC

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 50623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_se izing_pro...
y

Post by Keeper of the Purple Twilight
So not only can the government throw you out onto the street if your
property might be useful to the public, but also to any private
developer who happens by.
Bastards.

the shrub when he was governor and a minor owner of the texas rangers was
involved in doing that when they stole someones ranch to build the new
ballpark in arlington.

Other than some lame claim that "Bush did it, too," what's your point?

ray o'hara

2005-06-25 17:58:20 UTC

Post by m***@earthlink.net

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 50623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_se izing_pro...
y

the shrub when he was governor and a minor owner of the texas rangers was
involved in doing that when they stole someones ranch to build the new
ballpark in arlington.

Other than some lame claim that "Bush did it, too," what's your point?

that its nothing new.

m***@earthlink.net

2005-06-25 18:27:49 UTC

***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- Show quoted text -

Post by ray o'hara
that its nothing new.

Except that now the Supreme Court has effectively re-written the
Constitution on the fly. And if the Court can now amend the
Constitution whenever it bloody well feels like it, so much for checks
and balances on abuse of judicial power.

I hope the proponents of this decision like the Imperial Court they're
creating for all of us when the IC comes around to bite *them* in the
ass.

ray o'hara

2005-06-25 18:36:20 UTC

Post by m***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -

Post by ray o'hara
that its nothing new.

Except that now the Supreme Court has effectively re-written the
Constitution on the fly. And if the Court can now amend the
Constitution whenever it bloody well feels like it, so much for checks
and balances on abuse of judicial power.
I hope the proponents of this decision like the Imperial Court they're
creating for all of us when the IC comes around to bite *them* in the
ass.

all the supreme court did was say it is a state affair. they didn't rule on
the seizures only that they had no authority in the matter.
so where is the rewriting ?

m***@earthlink.net

2005-06-25 21:16:45 UTC

***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- Show quoted text -

all the supreme court did was say it is a state affair. they didn't
rule on
the seizures only that they had no authority in the matter.
so where is the rewriting ?

Okay, so it's the state courts doing the rewriting. That makes me feel
a lot better.

theget

2005-06-25 21:34:41 UTC

Post by ray o'hara
all the supreme court did was say it is a state affair. they didn't rule on
the seizures only that they had no authority in the matter.

I'd be fascinated to see a quote from the opinion in this case that
suggests that the court said it was a state matter and they had no
authority in the matter.

Theget
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=56726

t***@bellsouth.net

2005-06-25 23:00:43 UTC

They can also take property if the govt. finds mineral deposits...or oil,
natural gas...or other useful and needed commodities. Thankfully my house
rests on an old, old dried up riverbed.

There's also the issue of "air space"...I saw a show on HGTV about folks who
wouldn't sell out and move when their neighborhoods went commercial....one
little ole feisty chicka got busy and told them she'd sell them her "air
space" (meaning they could build above the height of her home) and she got
to stay and got money outta it *hehe* Show was called Hold-Outs I
believe....

This has been going on for a LONG time.....even though I don't like
Bush...he didn't do it...it t'were already done decades ago. If anyone
knows the story of the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)....you'll
understand.

I am 35, my dad had our property surveyed when I was a kid.....and when my
dad was a pup, my papaw was smart enough to plant a tree on the property
line......so whenever it needs to be pruned.....the city pays half and daddy
pays half *hehe*.

I'd love to see where folks somehow bought out old broken down businesses
and tore them down and made greenspace.....I'd love to do that here where I
live. We have city parks....SMALL city parks and they try to cram so much
into so little space that it's just ridiculous.

Babbling in TN
Cyn
--
***********************************************
"Always tell them the truth, it's the one thing they'll never believe."
Andy Sipowitz - NYPD Blue

Post by ray o'hara
all the supreme court did was say it is a state affair. they didn't rule on
the seizures only that they had no authority in the matter.

I'd be fascinated to see a quote from the opinion in this case that
suggests that the court said it was a state matter and they had no
authority in the matter.
Theget
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=56726

ray o'hara

2005-06-26 02:39:32 UTC

Post by t***@bellsouth.net
They can also take property if the govt. finds mineral deposits...or oil,
natural gas...or other useful and needed commodities. Thankfully my house
rests on an old, old dried up riverbed.
There's also the issue of "air space"...I saw a show on HGTV about folks who
wouldn't sell out and move when their neighborhoods went commercial....one
little ole feisty chicka got busy and told them she'd sell them her "air
space" (meaning they could build above the height of her home) and she got
to stay and got money outta it *hehe* Show was called Hold-Outs I
believe....
This has been going on for a LONG time.....even though I don't like
Bush...he didn't do it...it t'were already done decades ago. If anyone
knows the story of the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority)....you'll
understand.
I am 35, my dad had our property surveyed when I was a kid.....and when my
dad was a pup, my papaw was smart enough to plant a tree on the property
line......so whenever it needs to be pruned.....the city pays half and daddy
pays half *hehe*.
I'd love to see where folks somehow bought out old broken down businesses
and tore them down and made greenspace.....I'd love to do that here where I
live. We have city parks....SMALL city parks and they try to cram so much
into so little space that it's just ridiculous.
Babbling in TN
Cyn

the tva was a public work, the new london case invovled taking private
propert and giving it to a private concern. the developer saw a nice peice
of land that if he could get his hands on he could make a bunch of money. he
went to the city and told them if they gave him the land he would build
something more taxable for the city. that is streching the idea of a public
work.

and these weren't old broken down homes but a very well kept neighbor hood
with upper middle class people.

t***@bellsouth.net

2005-06-26 02:46:37 UTC

Post by ray o'hara
the tva was a public work, the new london case invovled taking private
propert and giving it to a private concern. the developer saw a nice peice
of land that if he could get his hands on he could make a bunch of money. he
went to the city and told them if they gave him the land he would build
something more taxable for the city. that is streching the idea of a public
work.
and these weren't old broken down homes but a very well kept neighbor hood
with upper middle class people.

Well what I was referring to with TVA was all the poor farmers that were
forced off their farms in my area (including my husband's own
grandfather).....in order to build the dams...we're closest to Norris
Dam......we go out to the Point sometimes to see out where you could go down
to the farm......and then turn left to see the multimillion dollar gated
"villages" that are popping up on lake front property....like TVA didn't see
that coming...

but anywho...I'm still rambling....
Cyn

--
***********************************************
"Always tell them the truth, it's the one thing they'll never believe."
Andy Sipowitz - NYPD Blue

ray o'hara

2005-06-26 03:15:31 UTC

Post by t***@bellsouth.net

money.

Post by t***@bellsouth.net

Post by ray o'hara
he
went to the city and told them if they gave him the land he would build
something more taxable for the city. that is streching the idea of a public
work.
and these weren't old broken down homes but a very well kept neighbor hood
with upper middle class people.

damns reservoirs the ten-tom canal all come under the traditional meaning
of public works, and i doubt in the days of the tva they foresaw gated
communities as they had yet to be invented.

Sparky Spartacus

2005-06-26 17:27:06 UTC

Post by t***@bellsouth.net

In the 1930's - doubt that they did.

Brett A. Pasternack

2005-06-27 09:31:58 UTC

Post by ray o'hara
and these weren't old broken down homes but a very well kept neighbor hood
with upper middle class people.

Ah. I was wondering why the Republicans cared.

m***@earthlink.net

2005-06-28 13:30:31 UTC

Post by Brett A. Pasternack

Post by ray o'hara
and these weren't old broken down homes but a very well kept neighbor hood
with upper middle class people.

Brett A. Pasternack replied

Post by Brett A. Pasternack
Ah. I was wondering why the Republicans cared.

Funny, I was wondering why the liberals *don't* care.

David Johnston

2005-07-03 04:34:13 UTC

Post by m***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -

Post by ray o'hara
that its nothing new.

Except that now the Supreme Court has effectively re-written the
Constitution on the fly.

No, it has refused to re-write the Constitution on the fly. There is
nothing in the Constitution saying that the government can't give
public land to a private enterprise. There is something in the
Constitution saying that the government can take private land
and make it public. Now, maybe there should be a federal law, or even
an amendment saying something like "if expropriated land is to be
returned to private ownership it must be returned to the original
owner" but nobody who is opposed to an activist court can reasonably
expect the Supreme Court to be the ones to make that law.

theget

2005-07-03 19:22:03 UTC

Post by m***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -

Post by ray o'hara
that its nothing new.

Except that now the Supreme Court has effectively re-written the
Constitution on the fly.

No, it has refused to re-write the Constitution on the fly. There is
nothing in the Constitution saying that the government can't give
public land to a private enterprise.

Is it your position that if the constitution doesn't grant gov't a
power the gov't has that power?

Post by David Johnston
There is something in the
Constitution saying that the government can take private land
and make it public.

The relevant phrase is: "nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation ."

Which to my mind imples that the gov't may take land for a "public
use".

We might argue about what this means. A public road or public school
would certainly be a public use. A privately owned railroad, even if a
common carrier, is a bit questionable in my mind. Building a privately
owned manufacturing facitlity? I'm having a little bit of trouble with
that one.

Post by David Johnston
Now, maybe there should be a federal law, or even
an amendment saying something like "if expropriated land is to be
returned to private ownership it must be returned to the original
owner" but nobody who is opposed to an activist court can reasonably
expect the Supreme Court to be the ones to make that law.

There I agree with you. But I think what you've written implies that
the reasons New London wanted to take the property have no
constitutional support.

I'm beinging to think that my previous suggestion that each state
should make a law requireing a state wide referendum isn't a bad a idea
and I'd even extend that to make the referendum include the amount of
compensation. But I'd hope someone might come up with something
better.

Theget

David Johnston

2005-07-03 20:20:28 UTC

Post by m***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -

Post by ray o'hara
that its nothing new.

Except that now the Supreme Court has effectively re-written the
Constitution on the fly.

No, it has refused to re-write the Constitution on the fly. There is
nothing in the Constitution saying that the government can't give
public land to a private enterprise.

Is it your position that if the constitution doesn't grant gov't a
power the gov't has that power?

Actually it's my position that whatever is not forbidden, is allowed
in general. People (and corporations) can do whatever they want as
long as there isn't a law against it. Governments can pass whatever
law they want as long as there is no constitutional provision against
it (and they can weather the public reaction). For that reason the
constitution doesn't not so much give powers to the government, as it
does restrict the government from certain powers, (and try to set
which particular governmental parts win when they argue about a given
issue).

Post by David Johnston
There is something in the
Constitution saying that the government can take private land
and make it public.

The relevant phrase is: "nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation ."
Which to my mind imples that the gov't may take land for a "public
use".
We might argue about what this means. A public road or public school
would certainly be a public use. A privately owned railroad, even if a
common carrier, is a bit questionable in my mind. Building a privately
owned manufacturing facitlity? I'm having a little bit of trouble with
that one.

Maybe, but they've been doing it with no legal problems until the
people affected happened to be relatively affluent. There are decades
of "urban redevelopment" precedent to the effect that "public use" is
whatever the city government says it is. Ignoring precedent in favour
of what you think the Constitution _should_ mean is the very
definition of judicial activism. That the moderately affluent weren't
foresighted to challenge what might be regarded as an erosion of
property rights as long as it didn't impinge on them is perhaps
unfortunate but if we are to disavow "judicial activism", their only
recourse is legislative.

theget

2005-07-03 22:56:02 UTC

Post by m***@earthlink.net
- Show quoted text -

Post by ray o'hara
that its nothing new.

Except that now the Supreme Court has effectively re-written the
Constitution on the fly.

No, it has refused to re-write the Constitution on the fly. There is
nothing in the Constitution saying that the government can't give
public land to a private enterprise.

Is it your position that if the constitution doesn't grant gov't a
power the gov't has that power?

We have fundamentally different understandings of how the ocnstitution
is supposed to work. If your interpretation is correect, then it would
seem that the long list of powers granted to congress in Article I,
section 8, was unnecessary, as congress could have just voted those
powers for themselves. I wonder why the authors bothered if this is
the case?

Post by David Johnston
There is something in the
Constitution saying that the government can take private land
and make it public.

The relevant phrase is: "nor shall private property be taken for public
use without just compensation ."
Which to my mind imples that the gov't may take land for a "public
use".
We might argue about what this means. A public road or public school
would certainly be a public use. A privately owned railroad, even if a
common carrier, is a bit questionable in my mind. Building a privately
owned manufacturing facitlity? I'm having a little bit of trouble with
that one.

If words in the USC mean whatever someone says they mean, and not what
they may be reasonably asserted to mean, then we might as well not have
a constitution at all.

My understanding is that the USSC is not bound my it's prior decisions,
and therefore, rectifying this problem might not seen as judicial
activism.

Reinforcing precedent that wrongfully interpreted the USC, when you
know better, may be seen as judicial activism too.

Post by David Johnston
That the moderately affluent weren't
foresighted to challenge what might be regarded as an erosion of
property rights as long as it didn't impinge on them is perhaps
unfortunate but if we are to disavow "judicial activism", their only
recourse is legislative.

Having discovered that a mistake has been made, the most desireable
outcome is to attempt to correct it.

Theget

David Johnston

2005-07-03 23:22:15 UTC

Post by David Johnston
Actually it's my position that whatever is not forbidden, is allowed
in general. People (and corporations) can do whatever they want as
long as there isn't a law against it. Governments can pass whatever
law they want as long as there is no constitutional provision against
it (and they can weather the public reaction). For that reason the
constitution doesn't not so much give powers to the government, as it
does restrict the government from certain powers, (and try to set
which particular governmental parts win when they argue about a given
issue).

In point of fact they could have (and Parliament eventually did) but
the list of powers is actually intended to delineate where state
authority leaves off and federal authority begins. Originally the
states had everything except those powers.

Post by David Johnston
Maybe, but they've been doing it with no legal problems until the
people affected happened to be relatively affluent. There are decades
of "urban redevelopment" precedent to the effect that "public use" is
whatever the city government says it is. Ignoring precedent in favour
of what you think the Constitution _should_ mean is the very
definition of judicial activism.

If words in the USC mean whatever someone says they mean, and not what
they may be reasonably asserted to mean,

What is "reasonable" is always a matter of opinion. Obviously some
Supreme Court justices had a different opinion from yours.

theget

2005-07-04 16:42:34 UTC

In point of fact they could have (and Parliament eventually did)

The workings of an explicit constitutional republic and an implicit
constitutional monarchy are quite different, as is the basis of the
legislative power of each of these.

Post by David Johnston
but
the list of powers is actually intended to delineate where state
authority leaves off and federal authority begins. Originally the
states had everything except those powers.

And yet, the USC doesn't say that congress can vote themselves powers
other then those they were granted by the USC.

Either we live under a gov't of limited power or we don't.

If the constitution was intended to create a gov't of unlimited power,
then it's more or less a self-defeating nullity. The mere fact that
the USC exists implies that it was intended to create a gov't of
limited power that could not simply vote itself new powers.

If words in the USC mean whatever someone says they mean, and not what
they may be reasonably asserted to mean,

What is "reasonable" is always a matter of opinion. Obviously some
Supreme Court justices had a different opinion from yours.

Then we might well ask, if the words in the constitution have any
meaning at all.

Theget

David Johnston

2005-07-04 17:55:29 UTC

If words in the USC mean whatever someone says they mean, and not what
they may be reasonably asserted to mean,

What is "reasonable" is always a matter of opinion. Obviously some
Supreme Court justices had a different opinion from yours.

Then we might well ask, if the words in the constitution have any
meaning at all.

Yes they do. And that meaning is "What they mean to the highest level
of the justice system that has ruled on how they apply to real life".
The truth is, "public use" is not an expression where the same meaning
is immediately apparent to everyone. When that happens, someone has to
decide who gets to be right.

theget

2005-07-04 20:03:47 UTC

If words in the USC mean whatever someone says they mean, and not what
they may be reasonably asserted to mean,

What is "reasonable" is always a matter of opinion. Obviously some
Supreme Court justices had a different opinion from yours.

Then we might well ask, if the words in the constitution have any
meaning at all.

Yes they do.

Yes. Well, I contend that the words "public use" and "public benefit"
are not the same.

Post by David Johnston
And that meaning is "What they mean to the highest level
of the justice system that has ruled on how they apply to real life".

That's not the final word. Sooner or later we're going to have to
wonder what the words "good Behaviour" mean, and who gets to decide
what it means. That'll be fun.

Post by David Johnston
The truth is, "public use" is not an expression where the same meaning
is immediately apparent to everyone.

I agree.

Post by David Johnston
When that happens, someone has to
decide who gets to be right.

Sure, but like I implied, they get to decide what the phrase "public
use" means, not what the phrase "public benefit" means. Unless the USC
can decide what words appear in the USSC.

Theget

Brett A. Pasternack

2005-07-06 00:50:31 UTC

Post by theget
Yes. Well, I contend that the words "public use" and "public benefit"
are not the same.

For the sake of argument: if you get a benefit from something, can it
not be said that you are getting use out of it? Hmmmm...

theget

2005-07-06 02:11:51 UTC

Post by Brett A. Pasternack

Post by theget
Yes. Well, I contend that the words "public use" and "public benefit"
are not the same.

My favorite! ;)

Post by Brett A. Pasternack
if you get a benefit from something, can it
not be said that you are getting use out of it? Hmmmm...

Good question.

Not every use is a benefit. Not every benefit is a use.

My view is that as writ, The USC allows a gov't entity to take property
that falls under it's jurisdiction for a public use. There is no
requirement that the gov't has to demonstrate that the taking will be a
public benefit.

If we were to seriously say that the "public use" meant "public
benefit" then that would narrow the meaning of The Constitution to the
point where it would be almost impossible to exercise eminent domain.

But then, it's unlikely that the current court would give much thought
to what the words actually mean.

Theget.

"Something has gone seriously awry with this Court''s interpretation
of
the Constitution." _- Justice Thomas

David Johnston

2005-06-23 19:40:14 UTC

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:18:53 -0500, Keeper of the Purple Twilight

You act like this is something new. It isn't.

William December Starr

2005-06-23 23:42:14 UTC

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
So not only can the government throw you out onto the street if your
property might be useful to the public, but also to any private
developer who happens by. [Keeper of the Purple Twilight]

You act like this is something new. It isn't.

The formal codification of it is.

Unhappy conservatives should look on the bright side -- the judicial
activists on the Court, who would have gone against the state's
legislature rather than shown deference to it, lost.

--
William December Starr <***@panix.com>

ray o'hara

2005-06-24 05:31:33 UTC

Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:18:53 -0500, Keeper of the Purple Twilight

You act like this is something new. It isn't.

its one thing to take land for a needed highway or resevoir, but to take
someones land and to give it to someone else because they will build
something that can be taxed higher is wrong.

theget

2005-06-24 13:41:39 UTC