Cool. Now citizens can't own property

Page 2 of 5 First 1234 ... Last

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


  2. 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.
    •   
       


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

    Read the 5th Amendment.

    /karp

  4. 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

  5. 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
    •   
       


  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. for once I have to agree with Thomas

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. Hey, I know what we should do. We should all of us, the people, get together and pass an ammendment to the Constitution that protects the rights of property owners ...

    Oh ... wait ...

  22. 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.
    Multi-millionaire industry tycoons have much more influence on politicians than the average joe. You're right though, if something like this got too out of hand someone in the government would have the sense to shut it down.


    Some people end up getting screwed in the process, but that is never completely avoidable
    It's the fact that a law like this is actually on the books that is frightening to me. What if that was your house? Or my house? I dont think either of us would be looking at it objectively.

    And you know, if whatever land developer/corporation/etc was offering these people enough for their property, it wouldnt be a problem. They don't want to be fair, they want to get these houses for as little expense to them as possible. That's business, it's all about the bottom line and always will be.

    The fact that there is a law that could allow a private interest to take someone's land for developments that may positively affent the greater good and just maybe will end up making them millions of dollars just isnt right.

    I know in this case, the city has a clear cut plan for developent that will result in 1000+ jobs in the community, and in a sense I can see their reasoning. But who knows, in other cases where this law may be applied it may not be so clear cut.

    And then, this average American Citizen who just got 'fair market value' for his hard earned property has to find money to get a lawyer to protect his rights, in addition to taking time off work to find a new house and move, etc.

    And who has more resources to fight this battle? The Corporate entity with near-unlimited financial resources and an in-house team of highly paid lawyers, or some poor sod making $40k a year trying to feed a family of 3?

    That's the kind of situations you'll see because of this law, in the not-so-extreme case. The fact that its possible just isnt right.

  23. First they take your property and next goes your supplements ........

  24. Well here are the people that started this whole cluster.. so feel free to write them and tell them how you feel about it
    http://ci.new-london.ct.us/nlpages/F...max=all&-find=

  25. Charley Daniels said it best when he song "all this world needs is a few more rednecks"


    The next presidential election in 2008 I'm going to vote for Larry the Cable Guy

    GET 'R DONE!!!!

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix rising
    Charley Daniels said it best when he song "all this world needs is a few more rednecks"


    The next presidential election in 2008 I'm going to vote for Larry the Cable Guy

    GET 'R DONE!!!!
    Oh Geez...
  27. Just compensation...


    From Newsday:

    The city [New London, CT] has budgeted $1.6 million to pay for the 15 homes. Von Winkle said he's been told he will get $638,000 for his three houses. Von Winkle figures that's not even close to fair. He owns the homes mortgage-free and says he earns about $120,000 a year in rent.

    The holdouts and their 15 homes were all that stood in the way of plans to build a hotel, office space and upscale homes.


    I saw an interview with one of the homeowners. His property is a 10 bedroom house on 1/2 acre 200 feet from the waterfront. The city originally offered him $60K, but upped it to $150K. He said that local market value was actually more than $300K.

    These people aren't getting just compensation, these people are getting BONED!! The horrific part is that any one of us could be next.

    Sad day for our system.
  28. Talking


    Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Oh Geez...
    I'm glad you could appreicate my post reply BigVrunga

  29. In TN and Texas I believe it is legal to use deadly force in order to remove a trespasser from your property. Back at my parents house which is way off the road. All we'd have to do is let the dogs on them and if they came back and messed with the dogs well then they'd be messing with the "persuader" and he doesn't listen to much bull ****.

    In all honestly if some smart ass corporate guy came out and after I tell him no your not getting my house and then the show up with a bull dozer. Some body will die plain and simple and then I will use my life savings to declare my inocence to the jury, which I am sure they could relate. Just my .02cc's not as an educated answer to the problem but it sure as hell would make a much louder outcry to the twisted government, politicians, courts, and corporations.

  30. Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    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
    This is a pretty naive stance. Private industry controls the government in this country. Who do you think pays to put these people in office? Do you really think the 'common man' could run a grass roots campaign against the corporate establishment, with their multimillion dollar campaigns, and win? Try it, I bet a few friends might vote for you, unless the recognized your opponents name from a TV ad saying what a great person he is or because his father was a politician before him.

    In the beautiful city of Philadelphia, where I live, we have been going through a nasty 'pay to play' scandal where city officials where taking kickbacks to give out city work to private contractors. How hard do you think it will be for a developer to buy his way into the land he wants through the city? Throw in a generous donation to the reelection bid and the average person is screwed again in favor of corporate interests. Especially when the politician can easily justify his actions by saying, "The new shopping/housing will generate ten times more tax revenue for the city than before." Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.

    Now, I'm not saying that corporations have no right to make money, or that our system of government is run by charlatans. However, this seems to be an issue of moral fairness on every level, and it is not remotely fair. This is a utilitarian dream, it is a move that makes a group of people very happy at the expense of another, smaller group. I am happy to see so many posts that are riled up about this, I do not believe it is a 'hot-button' issue with people overreacting. I think it is the 'straw the broke the camel's back', and people are beginning to wake up to see that our rights are being trampled upon.
  •   

      
     

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