Today the US Supreme Court ruled that it is okay to take personal or business property in order to raise more taxes! NICE JOB IDIOTS!
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2005/06/23/ap2108406.html
http://www.castlecoalition.com/
-- Modified on 6/23/2005 8:21:56 AM
-- Modified on 6/23/2005 8:23:04 AM
"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.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
I'm not shocked by who supported this, but this IS a flagrant violation of the Constitution and since it's a Supreme Court decision, the citizens are screwed.
Just one more step towards a society where you have no choice, the government will decide what's best for you.
It will be interesting to see the replies from the more left leaning posters about this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this ruling supported by the liberal side of the supreme court?
Funny, because I would presume that the supporters of the law were capitalistic pigs, business men. People/organizations normally associated with conservative causes.
I'm against the ruling for general "economic development" reasons, but would be supportive for general public benefit, such as a medical office building next to a hospital, blight remediation, etc. FYI: "blight remediation" is a big loophole, but would generally be more difficult for nice houses in an area that is being converted to commercial.
I guess we need more conservatives on the supream court to keep government from intruding further.
In the liberal world view government is king and trumps (tramples) all individual rights. Individual rights is one of the foundations of this country but I guess since they generally hate the country...
this ruling is 'liberal' in the sense that the moneyed class will not like it.
this ruling puts property rights in a more proper perspective in terms of legal rights, in general. it is the 'conservatives' who get so exercised over property rights and property, while, in general, displaying a callous disregard for human life, human suffering, human rights, etc.
in the past liberals would have liked the ruling. since reagan, however, liberals have become very adept at subverting liberal ideals and .... accordingly, liberals have good reasons to remain sceptical even with 'liberal' rulings...
i think that this ruling will benefit the donald trumps of the world much more than those waiting for the next neighborhood clinic to open in the place of the next condemnation via eminent domain....
[notice, btw, that the poor seem to have their own non-eminent condemnation......, and they loose more than the right to resist that their property, at its fair market value, would be recruited in favor of a greater good]
additionally, the descision seems to be consistent with this countries general trend towards a post-orwellian society - with power concentrated on both ends - at the top (washington) and locally. everything else gets eviscerated, everyone gets turned into an automatons, and checks and balances yield to the whims and near-absolute power of the ruling fascists.
other than that - hakuna matata
used exactly this kind of appropriation of property to build his ballpark as owner of the Texas Rangers, I tend to doubt that the conservatives are too opposed to this.
sad indeed....
almost as sad as the medical marijuana ruling
the patriot act, along with the other asscroft-rampages took our liberty without any compensation.
it is not the compensation, of course, that i crave for the lost liberty.... just wanna put the plight of the homeowners in the context of its times....
The Patriot Act had NOTHING to do with this. Not even the times that gave rise to the PA had anything to do with this. The Court members that supported the Patriot Act are the ones that dissented AGAINST this ruling and vice versa.
This is ALL about socialism. The Court TOTALLY IGNORED the "public use" phrase of the 5th Amendment.
This is a sad, sad day. The WORST decision in a century. I really thought it would go the other way.
YOur city can now condemn your house to sell (or give) the land to a PRIVATE developer, just because it increases the tax base. Private land ownership WAS THE most sacred corner stone of our freedoms.
Almost makes me want to fire up the "Impeach the Gang of Five" poster printing.
You anti-globalists should be all over this.
maybe its about capitalism......, and maybe the left, under a rare spasm of realism, decided to give the right enough rope to hang themselves....., and by the quantity of crocodile tears on this board alone, it seems that the trick worked....
the middle class in the u.s. has a fanatical delusion of being 'capitalists,' just because they're 'economic animals,' who churn between $20k and $20,000,000 annually, or even more, and live, relatively, high off the hog.
enough crying, please.... i'm all out of cleanex
remember that headline?...... of 6/6/05?
it hardly caused a stir, except for a shock wave caused by dr. gonzo's convulsive fluttering....
but we do get excited over eminent domain?
gimme a break, pass the spliff and let me go back and listen some more to eminem
they kick you out of your house, you can't keep living there!
We need a Constitutional convention. And a revolution. In that order.
The definition of "public good" is now equated to "providing the most tax revenue." No good will come from that.
I could see I'm better off renting in the US rather than owning.
Aside from the fact that this ruling will provide the needed loophole in California to bypass Prop 13, maybe this might not be so bad.
Consider, locabigmoney people could seek out those who they find politically contrary to their (big money) desires, and seek to confiscate the property of those politicians.
Imagine what would happen if the Supreme Court Justices and congress suddenly learned that local governments decided that the homes of these "leaders" were needed to improve the revenue base.
Hell, we could have the White Hosue torn down for a new mega-unit housing cmplex.
The problem is reigning in the judiciary. If the congress and executive branch doesn't reign them in, they will keep ignoring what is written in the constitution, and invent what isn't. Where does this International Law crap in some prior rulings come from.
there's a constitutional convention coming up in Baghdad, should we just ask to be allowed to join? maybe sha'aria would work for us here.... they say that an islamic theocracy isn't such a bad thing after all..... hmmmm, sure, why not? israel, saudi-arabia, to name a couple, are both theocracies and supposedly also good friends of the administration. anyway, we're fast on the way of also becoming a theocracy.
on second thought, perhaps it is too late because the u.s. constitution is de facto near-death....
The blame can be equally spread amongst the judiciary, the legislative, the executive, and the electoral body.
We all created thsi mess and we all have to pay.
The clowns in the balck robes have decreed that they have the power to disregard the constitution under the guise of "interpretation".
Although, to be fair, the 5th ammendment does say "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"
Note that it does not clearly say the government cannot take it, just cannot take it without "just compensation". Kinda loke the first ammendment and the "seperation of church and state", it's not explicitly stated, that's just the "interpretation".
I'll begin building my arsenal tomorrow to protect myself, apparently I cannot rely on the US to do that anymore.
were we really collectively smarter than we were in 1776 to justify a philosophy of 'original intent,' or is any conservative talk of original intent not just another improvident license for backward thinking?
would the founders have changes a few things in the constitution if they could have imagined leaders like nixon, reagan and gwb, not to mention hitler, stalin, mussolini, bin-ladin, arafat, the saudi royals (all 5,000 of them), pol pot, baby doc duval, japan's 'leadership' in WWII, as well as in darfur and zimbabwe today, rwanda and the other genocides of the 20th centur, etc.? would they have sanctioned the u.s.' monroe doctrine - either the 20th-century version, or its 21st-century version in the form of "with us, or against us?" did they sanction the ensuing treatment of 'native indians' and slaves?
it seems like virtigo is a risk of mounting too high a horse..... likewise, reverting to jungle-law, a la' the currently popular (yet dead-wrong) interpretation of the 'right to bear arms.....
is 'bring it on' a good policy, strategy or even a smart thing to say?
how many times does one need to be lied to before sensing a credibility gap? is gwb really the best and the brightest that this great nation has to offer? [same question for california and florida.]
i used to nderstand things better - i don't know what happened.....
I forgot who, but one of the founding fathers said something along the lines of:
The constitution is designed to govern a godly country. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other.
Part of that is doing things the right way. When the courts loose the "rule of law", then there is nothing left to govern them.
godly country could very well be an alusion to the awesomeness of nature, life and the universe.
anyway, quotes are a dime a dozen.
as to 'rule of law':
courts can't "loose the 'rule of law'" because they're an integral part of the 'rule of law.'
law is many things, including individual submission (a form of self-enslavement), coersion (the "legal system" and state power), convention (the 'social contract'), and personal convictions/philosophy (personal morality, ethics and/or spirituality).
so perceived, the law seems to have many rules, as well as many rulers....
ultimately, however, it boils down to individual responsibility - i.e. what rules does a person impose on him/herself.
if we all just took responsibility for ourselves, as opposed to impose on others (by way of 'rule of law' or otherwise), then, maybe, we could do with fewer laws (and, probably, also better laws).
lastly, purporting to act on behalf of some godly law, most of which originated during pre-enlightenment eras, seems to me the ultimate tyranny. perhaps for that reason the founding fathers decreed religious freedom AND freedom from religious domination upon this 'godly country.' but, could they have anticipated today's reality - including such freaks as gwb, carl rove, etc.?
btw - i consider the entire universe to be 'godly country,' and i'm still looking for any mention of the u.s.a. in any biblical tract.... (neo-evangelitical sermons excluded)
To put it another way, the Constitution is for those who willingly submit themselves to be governed by the Constitution. The Constitution does not work for persons who don't want to be limited by its restrictions.
The term "godly country" in the quote refers to people who are willing to submit to rules (like people who obey God's law, and thus submit to those rules). It has nothing to do with the morality of the person or the laws.
Once people decide that they are no longer bound by the rules, they become "ungodly", and there is nothing a piece of paper can do to stop them.
That is when we will really lose our liberties. When true force is used to govern.
when law, ethics and morality diverge too much, then your looking at a systemic failure.
your concerns seem to focus on individual security, and i don't prescribe to the ARA's philosophy in this regard.
i'm trying to live with two out of three - ethics and morality, while trying to stay away from what 'law' is/has become.
i don't recall our mythological adams and eves packing heat, and i wonder if we really were meant to pack so much heat.
chill out, drop out
that this ruling is closer to fascism than anything that the Bush Administration has done and that the far Left has screamed about for five years. Even the Left is screaming about it.
Yet it was a decision by those five members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: Stevens; Ginsburg; Breyer; Souter; and Kennedy.
And it was those notorious left-wingers -- Rehnquist; Scalia; Thomas; and O'Connor -- in dissent.