Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

john w k wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

JWK, FOUNDER, ACRS:

You're the only one who lives in the make-believe world where the court does not have jurisdiction. The rest of have to deal with reality.

But Debra dear, I do recall you correctly saying :

Quote:

The city council has absolutely no "federal claim" against the state that it could possibly bring in a federal court and appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

I'll try this another way:

SO WHAT?

Please explain why my response to Foxfyre's question regarding the city council that hypothetically sues the state has anything to do with your erroneous belief that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case.

The city council has absolutely no "federal claim" against the state that it could possibly bring in a federal court and appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

I don't expect that you will learn anything from this discussion, but maybe someone else will and that's the only reason why I would continue to address your outrageously erroneous beliefs.

There you go again my dear, making things up as you go along. The truth is, I never said the S.C. “…did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case…”

I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, “as the case was presented, there was no federal question”. I said nothing about the Court not having jurisdiction to take the case and decide if there was a federal question.

In regard to jurisdiction, I did make the following comment:

No Debra. I am not thrilled “…that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE “. The truth is, the Court ruled in favor of state public servants, agreeing they have authority to take the property of one and sell it to another for a profit making venture, and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter. The Court unduly and without constitutional authority, lent its position of authority in the case and sided with one of the litigants in the case.

Do you not recall your own words which support my above statement? You wrote:

Quote:

The city council has absolutely no "federal claim" against the state that it could possibly bring in a federal court and appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

And while we're on the subject, I didn't say you said the S.C. “…did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case…”

I said, "You're the only one who lives in the make-believe world where the court does not have jurisdiction."

SO WHAT?

Please explain why my response to Foxfyre's question regarding the city council that hypothetically sues the state has anything to do with your erroneous belief that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case.

ROFL, JWK.

Copying and pasting my sarcastic response to your ridicoulousness simply makes your previous statements even more ridiculous.

You have consistently been saying that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case.

Then you PROCLAIM, "I NEVER SAID the SC didn't have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case."

ROFL

And then you admit you're a liar

But at the same time, the ruling has emboldened some cities to take property for development plans on private land. Here in Santa Cruz, for example, city officials started legal action this month to seize a parcel of family-owned land that holds a restaurant with a high Zagat rating, two other businesses and a conspicuous hole in the ground and force a sale to a developer who plans to build 54 condominiums.

Legal theft:

Quote:

But at the same time, the ruling has emboldened some cities to take property for development plans on private land. Here in Santa Cruz, for example, city officials started legal action this month to seize a parcel of family-owned land that holds a restaurant with a high Zagat rating, two other businesses and a conspicuous hole in the ground and force a sale to a developer who plans to build 54 condominiums.

Source

If something doesn't belong to you, it's immoral to take it, no matter what your rationalization.

Debra_Law wrote:

ROFL, JWK.

Copying and pasting my sarcastic response to your ridicoulousness simply makes your previous statements even more ridiculous.

You have consistently been saying that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case.

Then you PROCLAIM, "I NEVER SAID the SC didn't have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case."

ROFL

And then you admit you're a liar

How about posting my words to support your above accusations. You should be ashamed of yourself.

There you go again my dear, making things up as you go along. The truth is, I never said the S.C. “…did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case…”

I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, “as the case was presented, there was no federal question”. I said nothing about the Court not having jurisdiction to take the case and decide if there was a federal question.

In regard to jurisdiction, I did make the following comment:

No Debra. I am not thrilled “…that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE “. The truth is, the Court ruled in favor of state public servants, agreeing they have authority to take the property of one and sell it to another for a profit making venture, and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter. The Court unduly and without constitutional authority, lent its position of authority in the case and sided with one of the litigants in the case.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Legal theft:

Quote:

But at the same time, the ruling has emboldened some cities to take property for development plans on private land. Here in Santa Cruz, for example, city officials started legal action this month to seize a parcel of family-owned land that holds a restaurant with a high Zagat rating, two other businesses and a conspicuous hole in the ground and force a sale to a developer who plans to build 54 condominiums.

Source

If something doesn't belong to you, it's immoral to take it, no matter what your rationalization.

Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Why should the Constitution provide more protection to individual property rights than it provides for individual liberty interests (the right to be let alone--the right to be free from governmental intrusion into your life)? We boast that we live in the "land of the free." The purpose of forming government was to SECURE the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our progeny.

Using your measuring stick: If other people's liberty interests do not cause you harm, it's immoral to enact laws to regulate other people's liberty interests, no matter what your rationalization.

And yet, you have no moral dilemma in approving and condoning laws that regulate the liberty interests/conduct/freedom of others with respect to marriage, sexuality, procreative destiny, and self-determination.

Therefore, it's difficult to empathize with your constitutional tantrum over the Kelo case.

john w k wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

ROFL, JWK.

Copying and pasting my sarcastic response to your ridicoulousness simply makes your previous statements even more ridiculous.

You have consistently been saying that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case.

Then you PROCLAIM, "I NEVER SAID the SC didn't have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case."

ROFL

And then you admit you're a liar

How about posting my words to support your above accusations. You should be ashamed of yourself.

JWK wrote:

There you go again my dear, making things up as you go along. The truth is, I never said the S.C. “…did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case…”

I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, “as the case was presented, there was no federal question”. I said nothing about the Court not having jurisdiction to take the case and decide if there was a federal question.

In regard to jurisdiction, I did make the following comment:

No Debra. I am not thrilled “…that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE “. The truth is, the Court ruled in favor of state public servants, agreeing they have authority to take the property of one and sell it to another for a profit making venture, and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter. The Court unduly and without constitutional authority, lent its position of authority in the case and sided with one of the litigants in the case.

Brandon:

I'm expressing disappointment that you would value your property interests more than the liberty interests of other people. It makes me very sad that you express outrage over the Kelo decision, but wouldn't blink an eye if the Supreme Court ruled that women do not have the right to control their own bodies or determine their own procreative destiny.

You are outraged that the government could take control of your property; but you're not outraged at all that the government could take control of your body.

Owning your own home is nice. But, if the government takes your house and pays just compensation, you can buy another house....

Now some USers may have some slight understanding of how the original Americans felt about having the Euro invaders take their lands.

That has never been resolved, as over a million original Americans are still relegated to reservations on poor land far from their original homes, lacking the amenities that may be brought to rural Iraq before they are to them.

Debra_Law wrote:

john w k wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

ROFL, JWK.

Copying and pasting my sarcastic response to your ridicoulousness simply makes your previous statements even more ridiculous.

You have consistently been saying that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case.

Then you PROCLAIM, "I NEVER SAID the SC didn't have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case."

ROFL

And then you admit you're a liar

How about posting my words to support your above accusations. You should be ashamed of yourself.

JWK wrote:

There you go again my dear, making things up as you go along. The truth is, I never said the S.C. “…did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case…”

I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, “as the case was presented, there was no federal question”. I said nothing about the Court not having jurisdiction to take the case and decide if there was a federal question.

In regard to jurisdiction, I did make the following comment:

No Debra. I am not thrilled “…that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE “. The truth is, the Court ruled in favor of state public servants, agreeing they have authority to take the property of one and sell it to another for a profit making venture, and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter. The Court unduly and without constitutional authority, lent its position of authority in the case and sided with one of the litigants in the case.

But Debra dear, my statement is accurate and does not apply as you pretend! Although the SCOTUS had jurisdiction to hear the case, they had no jurisdiction to make law as they did with respect to the taking of private property for a public use in Connecticut, such law being governed by that state’s constitution, and is an internal matter of that state.




JWK

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [p*251] Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.

. . .

In Roby v. Colehour, 146 U.S. 153, 159 , 13 S. Sup. Ct. 47, it was said that: 'Our jurisdiction being invoked upon the ground that a right or immunity, specially set up and claimed under the constitution or authority of the United States, has been denied by the judgment sought to be reviewed, it must appear from the record of the case either that the right so set up and claimed was expressly denied, or that such was the necessary effect in law of the judgment.' De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U.S. 216, 234 , 8 S. Sup. Ct. 1053; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U.S. 327 ; Insurance Co. v. Needles, 113 U.S. 574, 577 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 681; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 183 , 15 S. Sup. Ct. 777. There is we conceive, no room to doubt that the legal effect of the judgment below was to declare that the rights asserted by the defendant under the national constitution were not infringed by the proceedings in the case. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must be overruled, and we proceed to examine the case upon its merits.

. . .


It is proper now to inquire whether the due process of law enjoined by the fourteenth amendment requires compensation to be made or adequately secured to the owner of private property taken for public use under the authority of a state.

. . .

In Scott v. Toledo, 36 Fed. 385, 395, 396, the late Mr. Justice Jackson, while circuit judge, and occasion to consider this question. After full consideration that able judge said: 'Whatever may have been the power of the states on this subject prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment [166 U.S. 226, 239] to the constitution, it seems clear that, since that amendment went into effect, such limitations and restraints have been placed upon their power in dealing with individual rights that the states cannot now lawfully appropriate private property for the public benefit or to public uses without compensation to the owner, and that any attempt so to do, whether done in pursuance of a constitutional provision or legislative enactment, whether done by the legislature itself or under delegated authority by one of the subordinate agencies of the state, and whether done directly, by taking the property of one person and vesting it in another or the public, or indirectly, through the forms of law, by appropriating the property and requiring the owner thereof to compensate himself, or to refund to another the compensation to which he is entitled, would be wanting in that 'due process of law' required by said amendment. The conclusion of the court on this question is that, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, compensation for private property taken for public uses constitutes an essential element in 'due process of law,' and that without such compensation the appropriation of private property to public uses, no matter under what form of procedure it is taken, would violate the provisions of the federal constitution.'

. . .

In our opinion, a judgment of a state court, even if it be authorized by statute, whereby private property is taken for the state or under its direction for public use, without compensation made or secured to the owner, is, upon principle and authority, wanting in the due process of law required by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, and the affirmance of such judgment by the highest court of the state is a denial by that state of a right secured to the owner by that instrument. . . .

JWK's proclamation that the Supreme Court decided the case and did so without jurisdiction has absolutely no basis in fact or law. He ignores Supreme Court precedent that stretches back more than 100 years.

No Debra. I am not thrilled “…that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE “. The truth is, the Court ruled in favor of state public servants, agreeing they have authority to take the property of one and sell it to another for a profit making venture, and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter. The Court unduly and without constitutional authority, lent its position of authority in the case and sided with one of the litigants in the case.

Debra_Law wrote:

JWK's proclamation that the Supreme Court decided the case and did so without jurisdiction has absolutely no basis in fact or law. He ignores Supreme Court precedent that stretches back more than 100 years.

Proclamation? Indeed! Mischaracterizing what I said Debra?

In regard to jurisdiction, I did make the following comment:

Quote:

No Debra. I am not thrilled “…that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE “. The truth is, the Court ruled in favor of state public servants, agreeing they have authority to take the property of one and sell it to another for a profit making venture, and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter. The Court unduly and without constitutional authority, lent its position of authority in the case and sided with one of the litigants in the case.

The truth is, while the SCOTUS had jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case, it had no jurisdiction or authority to make law for the state of Connecticut regarding the meaning of “public use” as opposed to “private use” as it applies to the taking of property within the state of Connecticut which is controlled by the Constitution of Connecticut and its own legislative acts, so long as such legislation does not violate a federal constitutional provision which may be applicable.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Bla, bla, bla,

But Debra, the color is black.

The color is not black, its white.

Well, the color is white.

No! The color is black, bla, bla, bla,