[Brooklyn]

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

[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.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Nope

Yes they do.

Read the 5th Amendment.

/karp

[jrkarp]

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 bullshit:

That's not what the ruling says at all.

/karp

[jrkarp]

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

[jrkarp]

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

[BigVrunga]

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 bullshit, no matter how you spin it.

BV

[TheCrownedOne]

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.

[Matthew D]

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?

[Matthew D]

for once I have to agree with Thomas

[jrkarp]

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

[BigVrunga]

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

[jrkarp]

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

[jrkarp]

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

[BigVrunga]

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

[jrkarp]

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

[jrkarp]

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

[BigVrunga]

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