Cool. Now citizens can't own property
- 06-23-2005, 01:15 PM
Cool. Now citizens can't own property
According to this Supreme Court Ruling, any local government can seize property at will without being audited by any external power or court. They can just if they so chose take people's homes from them without any kind of hearing and without those people having any say in the matter.
Basically it means that no one has right to property; a city may take your land at any time and thus the city owns your land and you merely purchased the right to live there.
- 06-23-2005, 01:33 PM
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
How the hell are the people going to appreciate it with nowhere to live?
- 06-23-2005, 01:33 PM
I heard this reported on NPR earlier today. The report said that the Supreme Court actually said that our elected officials knew what was best for their communitites, and that could mean clearing houses to build a shopping mall!!! I thought we elected officials to represent the will of the people, not because they were 'better' than the common person. Isn't that called aristocracy?
It would be interesting to see what types pf people are being forced from their homes. I would bet it's almost exclusively lower income and minority families. And to think, our government used to argue against countries such as China that used 'forced relocation' as a policy to take the land they wanted and move out the people they didn't want. Looks like the freedom we all cherish so greatly in this country has again been bashed, because politicians can run our lives so much better than we can ourselves.
06-23-2005, 01:34 PM
Nice, huh. This sh!t has been going on for a while, there were a couple of cases where chinamart, I mean walmart had taken over peoples land in a couple of small towns with the help of the local governments.
In a way, even if you don't have a mortgage on a house or land, you are still kind of renting it. If you don't pay your taxes they kick you off, no questions asked.
****ing activist judges. We might as well burn the constitution. :<
Hello socialism, next stop communism.
06-23-2005, 01:43 PM
06-23-2005, 01:44 PM
06-23-2005, 01:45 PM
WTF? I'd like to see 'em take some of the crazy country folks place. I'm sure a lot of people woudl get hurt or killed in a situation like that.
06-23-2005, 01:49 PM
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
The vote was straight down the conservative-liberal line. Just wait until Justice's O'Connor, Renquist, and Stevens retire, the future is looking mighty bad indeed.
06-23-2005, 01:52 PM
06-23-2005, 01:54 PM
"Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery," she wrote. "Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves, it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government." - Janis Rodgers Brown (Wonder why the congressional democrats were blocking her appointmnet )
Here's another case in CA
06-23-2005, 01:58 PM
I think you have to keep looking, Canada is a bit socialist as well. That is, if you consider paying 50% income tax so the government can provide free education and health care normal, by all means go.Originally Posted by Magickk
This country is still far ahead of others with regards to personal rights, but we are on a slippery slope and it looks like we're falling downward for sure.
06-23-2005, 02:33 PM
Was only a matter of time. The government has been using asset forfeiture rather liberally for a long time with little or no consequence for wrongly seized property. They've also used zoning laws and eminent domain laws to get entire neighborhoods declared 'blighted' so they could sell the land to the highest bidder. Now the farce has just been stripped away is all. And actually that's not a small step, it's a big one. The government is basically coming out of the closet on this one. Before it was like dealing with some pious ******* who preached morality and sexual decency, but when he closed his front door put on a leather mask and pissed all over his wife to get off. Now the freak is out in the open. The slippery slope just got a whole lot steeper and more slippery. Blatant power grabs in complete contradiction with the constitution and the traditional law of the land are now acceptable.
06-23-2005, 02:37 PM
06-23-2005, 02:41 PM
I love this country. I hate our government.
The scariest part of that statement is I was hesitating typing it because I was afraid of government reprisal. Tell me what that says about how much our government spits in the face of the Constitution that I was actually afraid to say something against it.
06-23-2005, 02:50 PM
"The thought police would get him just the same. He had committedâ€”would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paperâ€”the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."
06-23-2005, 03:04 PM
06-23-2005, 03:35 PM
Anyone who thinks this won't be used all that drastically just needs to look at East Tennessee. 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.
Businesses like Wal-Mart who are going to generate tons of tax revenue, well, cities are going to have a very real interest in procuring them in your community, one way or another.
It's time that Ginsberg & Co. took a hike. Not good. Not good at all.
06-23-2005, 03:51 PM
06-23-2005, 03:55 PM
06-23-2005, 03:58 PM
I'm sure, but don't expect it to be as much as you could actually sell it for.Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
And again, you don't get to choose when to sell and all the intangibles. Say you have that perfect tree for that treehouse you built little Bobby. Replacing that doesn't necessarily have a monetary value, but it can be something of great personal worth that's hard to replace. Same thing with farms that have been in the family for generations.
06-23-2005, 04:03 PM
06-23-2005, 04:03 PM
06-23-2005, 04:03 PM
06-23-2005, 04:04 PM
I agree. My dad and mom invested a lot into their home. Losing it can't be replaced by a new house. I just can't believe the gov't is increasingly not giving a **** about its citizens.Originally Posted by mtruther
06-23-2005, 04:11 PM
Anyone notice CNN very very quickly moved this article to the side?
It was printed on their homepage for a few hours, now it is extremely difficult to find.....
I wonder why....
06-23-2005, 04:46 PM
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.'Originally Posted by Iron Warrior
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.
06-23-2005, 08:39 PM
06-23-2005, 08:53 PM
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.
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.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.
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.
06-23-2005, 09:26 PM
06-23-2005, 10:47 PM
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.Originally Posted by Brooklyn
Similar Forum Threads
- By dsade in forum PoliticsReplies: 47Last Post: 09-18-2009, 01:19 PM
- By KmuL in forum SupplementsReplies: 29Last Post: 12-11-2008, 05:42 PM
- By bigrich954rr in forum SupplementsReplies: 6Last Post: 11-09-2005, 09:00 PM
- By good_guye28 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 8Last Post: 01-02-2004, 10:14 AM
- By Conceptions in forum General ChatReplies: 22Last Post: 03-24-2003, 11:18 AM