Cool. Now citizens can't own property

Page 2 of 6 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
    Do the people still get fair compensation for their homes ?
    No, because the only truly fair compensation is one that's an amount you're willing to accept at a time you're willing to accept it. It's no different than me taking your car and leaving a check for the blue book value. Except of course when the government does it, it's 'legal.'

    The underlying problem is that no market can function without a decent level of security in private property. Why buy when you can take? Property wasn't really a law as such until fairly recently. It's more discovered law, in that as land became scarce some kind of social convention or agreement was necessary to prevent chaos. When it stops being seen as something that's innate or inherent in a person's rights like their right to free speech and starts being seen as a grant by the government which can be taken away just as easily, that you get stupidity like this. People don't effectively own anything anymore, and haven't for long time. This is because all your assets are forfeit, including your freedom, to repay debts to the government should it decide you owe it to them. Nothing is sacred.

    It's also, to be a little more on topic, one of the underlying principles behind prohibition of steroids and other drugs. In order for the government to be able to say what you can and cannot put in your own body there is an implicit statement of ownership: their judgement supercedes yours even when it comes to your own body. They know better than you what is and is not good for you, and claim the authority to exercise that judgement. Now they're blatantly saying what they've been doing for while, claiming they know better than you what use to put your justly aquired property.


  2. bullets will fly soon.
    •   
       

  3. Exclamation


    Finally a topic on which everyone seems to agree. This is a misinterpretation of the Constitution which amounts to communism in action. Kansas City is one place that already does this extensively. There are rows of houses which are being bulldozed in order to build bigger roads, or put a bigger supermarket in, or whatever the local council or zoning board decides. The people who probably worked all their life to get that house? They're S.O.L., and you know what that means. They get a small amount of money, whatever the government thinks is fair (which is never anywhere close to market value) and they get the boot.

    I'd like to see these government scumbags would feel if it were their houses that were being taken from them to put a new Target or McDonalds in its place.

    Under Roosevelt, the federal government seized square mile after square mile of land, most of which it never used. That which it did use, well, let's just say that there are silos down at the bottom of lakes in Tennessee, and the people who owned those silos got paid crap in compensation.
    Yes, as I've said, FDR was a communist. Everything he did was not far off from what his friend "Uncle Joe" Stalin would have done in his place. The Supreme Court should be made to realize that what they have just done is effectively reversed the Supreme Court decisions which declared Roosevelt's actions Unconstitutional.

    You think that in most countries in Europe, they have to worry about something like this? Hell no. You buy property, it's yours. There's none of these b.s. property taxes, no threat that the government might just decide to take your hard-earned property one day. I blame the public first and foremost for tolerating these actions. Voting is the best way to show your disapproval. The majority of America should try it sometime.

  4. Let those mother****ers try to take my house.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    I'd like to see these government scumbags would feel if it were their houses that were being taken from them to put a new Target or McDonalds in its place.
    Me too, but it'll never happen. Just like when their kids get arrested for steroid or some other drug possession, somehow they don't end up in jail when anyone else would.
    •   
       


  6. You mean like when Dubya's daughters get caught underage drinking?

  7. Or when Dubya himself gets busted for cocaine ends up president of the United States.
    All that law says is that its now perfectly legal for rich people to take the land of those less fortunate in order to make more money for themselves. Those ****s in the supreme court would have never passed this law if their property, or the property of their little clan of Skull Society pansy bitches would ever have the possibility of being threatened.
    Last edited by BigVrunga; 06-24-2005 at 01:04 AM.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Nope
    Yes they do.

    Read the 5th Amendment.

    /karp

  9. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Or when Dubya himself gets busted for cocaine ends up president of the United States.
    All that law says is that its now perfectly legal for rich people to take the land of those less fortunate in order to make more money for themselves. Those ****s in the supreme court would have never passed this law if their property, or the property of their little clan of Skull Society pansy bitches would ever have the possibility of being threatened.

    Here's what I think about this bull****:
    That's not what the ruling says at all.

    /karp

  10. Here's the opinion: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...pdf/04-108.pdf

    Although to be honest, unless you've had legal training a lot of it isn't going to mean much.

    /karp

  11. Look, I'm not saying I completely agree with this ruling.

    But you know how you feel when someone hears something about steroids on 20/20 and goes on and on about how bad they are for you without taking the time to educate themselves? That's what a lot of you are doing right now.

    The media plays on people's fears. They love the fact that people are going to be outraged and are going to tune in to find out all about this. So they are going to sensationalize it as much as possible to create exactly the kind of reaction we are seeing here.

    /karp

  12. I havent had that much legal training, and that doc is easy to get through. Thanks for posting the link...

    We emphasize that nothing in our opinion
    precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use� requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domainstatutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings
    may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom ofusing eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a “public use� within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
    That's all well and good, but Justice Thomas says it best:

    The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal� programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property
    solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending
    the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically
    beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities
    are not only systematically less likely to puttheir lands to the highest and best social use, but are also
    18 KELO v. NEW LONDON
    THOMAS, J., dissenting
    the least politically powerful. If ever there were justification
    for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions
    that protect “discrete and insular minorities,� United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great forceto the powerless groups and individuals the Public UseClause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages “those citizens with disproportionate
    influence and power in the political pro- cess, including large corporations and developmentfirms� to victimize the weak.
    This is where the deterioration of our 'inalienable rights' starts. With laws that start out taking away our rights 'for our own good'. Its bull****, no matter how you spin it.

    BV

  13. Don't we have the right under the Constitution to force anyone out of office we collectively believe should be removed? I know the consensus on this will be identical; the majority of America doesn't want this.

  14. karp, it does look like you totally agree with the ruling by the comments you have been posting.

    Look at the wording of this ruling and tell me that this is not a land grap in the making for rich developers... all they have to do is get enough city elected officials to say that is a public work and then there goes you land.. and what is FAIR compension?

  15. for once I have to agree with Thomas

  16. I agree the government has the power to take the land in certain cases. Hell, the 5th Amendment authorizes it.

    My problem, however, is that many landowners are not given just compensation. The courts say that just compensation is fair market value. Often, the FMV of land is far below what it should be for some reason or another, or the landowner has put a lot of money into the land and therefore has a significant investment, but the FMV does not reflect that.

    /karp

  17. Look, I'm not saying I completely agree with this ruling.

    But you know how you feel when someone hears something about steroids on 20/20 and goes on and on about how bad they are for you without taking the time to educate themselves? That's what a lot of you are doing right now.

    The media plays on people's fears. They love the fact that people are going to be outraged and are going to tune in to find out all about this. So they are going to sensationalize it as much as possible to create exactly the kind of reaction we are seeing here.

    /karp
    You're right Karp I did get lividly irate the moment I read that CNN report, without tryint to nail down the facts first. The problem with this is, it paves the way for the government and for people with a lot of money and influence on politicians, to take the hard earned property of someone and their Families for something that might not be completely for 'the public good'.

    You can't adequately compensate with 'fair market value' for messing with someone's life, bulldozing their home and telling them to deal with it.

    A better idea for 'fair compensation' in this case would be to give a share of the profits from the intruding private industry to the families' that had their homes taken. AND 'fair market value' AND relocation expenses. Make it good for everybody.

    BV

  18. This ruling is far less significant than many people are making it out to be. There is not suddenly going to be a rush of people losing their homes. And use of eminent domain still requires a court to rule on the taking of land.

    My posts above were to try to get people to calm down instead of going off half cocked.

    /karp

  19. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    You can't adequately compensate with 'fair market value' for messing with someone's life, bulldozing their home and telling them to deal with it.

    A better idea for 'fair compensation' in this case would be to give a share of the profits from the intruding private industry to the families' that had their homes taken. AND 'fair market value' AND relocation expenses. Make it good for everybody.

    BV
    I agree completely with those sentiments.

    /karp

  20. 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.
    That's the fifth ammendment. Note the statement right before 'nor shall private property taken...'

    This ruling is far less significant than many people are making it out to be. There is not suddenly going to be a rush of people losing their homes. And use of eminent domain still requires a court to rule on the taking of land.
    Its not that signifigant NOW, but laws like this make way for crazier, more haneous laws in the future. Like the ability of the FDA to 'emergency schedule' a bodybuilding supplement, or an otherwise innocent person spending more time in jail than a rapist for growing a marijuana plant...laws like this one do have their long term repurcussions.

    BV

  21. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    I havent had that much legal training, and that doc is easy to get through. Thanks for posting the link...



    BV
    Yeah, that is one of the more clearly written Supreme Court opinions I've read. I posted the link before I had read the opinion.

    /karp

  22. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    That's the fifth ammendment. Note the statement right before 'nor shall private property taken...'
    Yup. But what people are missing is that there will still have to be court proceedings for the land to be taken.

    EDIT: Although the proceedings will be more about how much money they get rather than whether or not the land is taken.

    /karp

  23. Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    Yup. But what people are missing is that there will still have to be court proceedings for the land to be taken.

    EDIT: Although the proceedings will be more about how much money they get rather than whether or not the land is taken.

    /karp
    Right...It's now easier for private industry to make the case for taking someone's land. Who knows, maybe the people who have their homes taken will get plenty of compensation and everyone will be better off. But somehow I doubt it.

    BV

  24. Well, private industry can't do it. It still requires an action by a government body, and those are people in elected positions who can't abuse this power too much or they will be out of a job come next election.

    /karp

  25. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Its not that signifigant NOW, but laws like this make way for crazier, more haneous laws in the future. Like the ability of the FDA to 'emergency schedule' a bodybuilding supplement, or an otherwise innocent person spending more time in jail than a rapist for growing a marijuana plant...laws like this one do have their long term repurcussions.

    BV
    If it starts to get taken too far, what's going to happen is this: someone is going to go to court after their land gets taken, and eventually it will end up at the Supreme Court again. They'll say "****, that's not what we meant," and they will issue a ruling that will "narrow" and "clarify" this ruling so that it is applicable in fewer situations. That kind of thing has been happening for the last 200+ years. It's actually a good way for the court to later correct unintended consequences of their rulings. Some people end up getting screwed in the process, but that is never completely avoidable.

    /karp
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 02:19 PM
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 06:42 PM
  3. i just ran a cycle of trimax can i run clen now
    By bigrich954rr in forum Supplements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-09-2005, 10:00 PM
  4. Now that you can make your own transdermals....
    By good_guye28 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-2004, 11:14 AM
  5. Conceptions-I've been owned and now I'm banned!
    By Conceptions in forum General Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-24-2003, 12:18 PM
Log in
Log in