1
   

Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

 
 
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 09:42 pm
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled a few days ago that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private development, when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the project's success is not guaranteed.

It seems there is to be no such thing as a right to property anymore. I think that the right to keep your home and refuse to give it up is a very basic one, almost as basic as the right to physical integrity. Eminent domain should be applied only when there is an emergency, not just when it will benefit the community. You may be sure that a property owner who has no right to refuse to sell will not get as good a price as one who has the power to say no, and what about people who just don't want to sell? What about people who love their homes? This will inevitably devolve into situations in which the strong take property from the weak, no matter how the court has presented it. And forget buying property to invest in the hopes that it will become valuable someday. If you guess correctly, instead of making a lot of money, some developer with connections to politicians will be able to take it from you and make money from your insight and patience. I personally find this to be one of the worst and most objectionable court decisions in the history of the republic.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 12,869 • Replies: 234
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 10:12 pm
This administration keeps nominating conservative judges that doesn't interpret the constitution as it should. Once upon a time in this country, we thought the ownership of our home was one of the "pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Not any more. Based on somebody's subjective evaluation, they can take your home away at will. Don't you just love Bush and the Supremes?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 11:20 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
This administration keeps nominating conservative judges that doesn't interpret the constitution as it should. Once upon a time in this country, we thought the ownership of our home was one of the "pursuit of happiness" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Not any more. Based on somebody's subjective evaluation, they can take your home away at will. Don't you just love Bush and the Supremes?

I was trying to keep this non-partisan, but you might want to take a little peek at which justices were on which side on this one. After you do that, I hope that we can stop trying to blame each other for this atrocious decision.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2005 11:53 pm
Don't forget those forfeiture of property laws. You may have the possibility of redress, somewhere down the road, but, without property (which includes cash) competent representation can be hard to come by.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 12:02 am
roger wrote:
Don't forget those forfeiture of property laws. You may have the possibility of redress, somewhere down the road, but, without property (which includes cash) competent representation can be hard to come by.

Yes, it's wrong to seize someone's property before he is convicted, but at least f.o.p. laws involve people who are suspected of serious crimes. This decision, on the other hand, involves every citizen, and basically denies the idea that a person can own even something as basic as his home, if the government decides to appropriate it. This is really odious.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 12:36 am
If you don't want your well-maintained homes and lower/middle class neighborhoods taken for economic development, you have to get together with like-minded people and pressure your state legislatures to amend eminent domain laws.

The Supreme Court isn't taking your property--it's YOUR state and local government that is taking your property via YOUR elected representatives who make it possible. Resort to the political process and demand laws that adequately safeguard your property interests.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 12:39 am
Debra_Law wrote:
If you don't want your well-maintained homes and lower/middle class neighborhoods taken for economic development, you have to get together with like-minded people and pressure your state legislatures to amend eminent domain laws.

The Supreme Court isn't taking your property--it's YOUR state and local government that is taking your property via YOUR elected representatives who make it possible. Resort to the political process and demand laws that adequately safeguard your property interests.

One would think that the eminent domain provision of the Constitution would trump any laws passed by a congress.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 12:49 am
CONGRESS has nothing to do with your state and local economic development plans that include taking your home for "public use" and paying you "just compensation."

Remember, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to federal goverment. It is applicable to the STATES via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that economic development is a legitimate state interest that satisfies the Public Use Clause.

If you desire more protection than what the federal constitution provides for your private property interests, then you must appeal to your STATE political process to obtain that protection.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 01:23 am
Debra_Law wrote:
CONGRESS has nothing to do with your state and local economic development plans that include taking your home for "public use" and paying you "just compensation."

Remember, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to federal goverment. It is applicable to the STATES via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that economic development is a legitimate state interest that satisfies the Public Use Clause.

If you desire more protection than what the federal constitution provides for your private property interests, then you must appeal to your STATE political process to obtain that protection.

I didn't say "congress," I said "a congress" by which I meant to include town councils, legislatures and so on. You had suggested that those who object pass laws restricting the practice, but a law passed by a legislature, council, etc. cannot restrict or limit a power granted by the Constitution.

Furthermore, it is not a matter of desiring more protection than granted by the federal Constitution, the question is whether the Constitution says this at all. This decision by the Supereme Court seems to me like an attempt to remove what many people would say is an inherent natural right of all people - the right to own a home. Furthermore, this decision seems like one which will result in the strong preying on the weak.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 01:47 am
Does the american constitution provide for anything like a compensation clause? I know the australian federal constitutiton allows compensation to be paid - but only in the case of the federal government. State governments are not compelled to pay a cent in such cases.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 01:50 am
pragmatic wrote:
Does the american constitution provide for anything like a compensation clause? I know the australian federal constitutiton allows compensation to be paid - but only in the case of the federal government. State governments are not compelled to pay a cent in such cases.

They have to pay you a fair price, but I guarantee you it will be less than a person could get who had the power to bargain and say no, and it does not address the issue of people who prefer not to sell at all.
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 01:53 am
That's true...there are issues of arms length fair dealing which the public will never have compared to the government. I stand corrected.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 02:09 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
CONGRESS has nothing to do with your state and local economic development plans that include taking your home for "public use" and paying you "just compensation."

Remember, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to federal goverment. It is applicable to the STATES via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that economic development is a legitimate state interest that satisfies the Public Use Clause.

If you desire more protection than what the federal constitution provides for your private property interests, then you must appeal to your STATE political process to obtain that protection.


I didn't say "congress," I said "a congress" by which I meant to include town councils, legislatures and so on. You had suggested that those who object pass laws restricting the practice, but a law passed by a legislature, council, etc. cannot restrict or limit a power granted by the Constitution.

Furthermore, it is not a matter of desiring more protection than granted by the federal Constitution, the question is whether the Constitution says this at all. This decision by the Supereme Court seems to me like an attempt to remove what many people would say is an inherent natural right of all people - the right to own a home. Furthermore, this decision seems like one which will result in the strong preying on the weak.


It is inappropriate at worst and abnormal at best to refer to your city council or state legislature as a congress. The word "congress" most appropriately refers to the highest legislative body in a nation. Accordingly, in this country, CONGRESS refers to the United States Senate and House of Representatives. You didn't know that?

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant power; it limits power. Accordingly, governmental power to take private property is LIMITED. The government may only take private property for public use and the government must pay just compensation.

So long as your state or local government takes private property for public use and pays just compensation, there is no violation of the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 04:37 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
CONGRESS has nothing to do with your state and local economic development plans that include taking your home for "public use" and paying you "just compensation."

Remember, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to federal goverment. It is applicable to the STATES via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that economic development is a legitimate state interest that satisfies the Public Use Clause.

If you desire more protection than what the federal constitution provides for your private property interests, then you must appeal to your STATE political process to obtain that protection.


I didn't say "congress," I said "a congress" by which I meant to include town councils, legislatures and so on. You had suggested that those who object pass laws restricting the practice, but a law passed by a legislature, council, etc. cannot restrict or limit a power granted by the Constitution.

Furthermore, it is not a matter of desiring more protection than granted by the federal Constitution, the question is whether the Constitution says this at all. This decision by the Supereme Court seems to me like an attempt to remove what many people would say is an inherent natural right of all people - the right to own a home. Furthermore, this decision seems like one which will result in the strong preying on the weak.[/quote

It is inappropriate at worst and abnormal at best to refer to your city council or state legislature as a congress. The word "congress" most appropriately refers to the highest legislative body in a nation. Accordingly, in this country, CONGRESS refers to the United States Senate and House of Representatives. You didn't know that?

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant power; it limits power. Accordingly, governmental power to take private property is LIMITED. The government may only take private property for public use and the government must pay just compensation.[/quote]
Who cares if I used the wrong word? I never claimed perfection. I subsequently explained what I meant. The power to seize public property for the common good is indeed created by the Fifth Amendment. In the act of stating that compensation must be just, the Fifth Amendment tacitly recognizes that a pre-existing right exists. If the Fifth Amendment did not make this statement, the Constitution would not be regarded as giving government such a right. Any legislature attempting to protect people by passing a law limiting such a right would undoubtedly meet with lawsuits arguing that the legislatures possessed no power to curtail rights granted in the Constitution. Such laws would be declared unconstitutional.

Debra_Law wrote:
So long as your state or local government takes private property for public use and pays just compensation, there is no violation of the Constitution.

First of all, it is unlikely that a fair price would often not be granted, since a man with no power to bargain or say no is unlikely to get the price he would if he had such power.

Secondly, the authors of the Constitution are unlikely to have intended that a person's home could be seized with as low a requirement as merely that it be for public use. Surely, they intended this to be done only in extraordinary cases, not just because some developer wanted to turn someone's home into a mall. That would be tyranny.

Thirdly, many would say that all people have a natural right to own a home which no one has the power to seize. I do not object to an exception being granted for emergencies, but I consider it to be immoral to allow a person's home to be seized for casual public or private motives.

And finally, this decision will surely result in numerous cases of the rich contacting their political allies to seize some poor soul's home because they want to make some money from it.

I have observed that your usual practice is to attempt to condescend to and bully people with your law degree, and that the primary merit of your opinions is that you are willing to post them again and again until your opponent does not recognize their validity, but just prefers not to speak with you further.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 05:51 am
I think the point was that while the power of eminent domain is inherent because of sovereignty then that sovereign body can limit it should it choose. I am making an assumption here from reading Debra_Law's post I'm pretty sure the point was to get active and persuade your sovereign body (state) to limit its ability to do so by passing state laws. The US Supreme Court has - I think - expanded the concept of eminent domain but that concept is an old one. But the Court has only given potential. No state has to actually go out and do it, it's not compulsory. Therefore citizens need to get active and get their state to pass legislation to limit its use of eminent domain.

I think that's right, I shall happily be corrected.

If I am right then it is an excellent suggestion by Debra_Law. Brandon, with all due respect (don't you hate that phrase? You know something's coming) I think you got a bit snippy there. Free advice Brandon, pro publico bono - in its broadest sense :wink:
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 05:56 am
Debra_Law wrote:
CONGRESS has nothing to do with your state and local economic development plans that include taking your home for "public use" and paying you "just compensation."

Remember, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to federal goverment. It is applicable to the STATES via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that economic development is a legitimate state interest that satisfies the Public Use Clause.

If you desire more protection than what the federal constitution provides for your private property interests, then you must appeal to your STATE political process to obtain that protection.



Here is a quote from SteveInClearwater which is quite interesting about the SCOTUS:


What seems most fascinating to me is that Stevens wrote for the Majority here as he also did in the Raich case.

Here he says that it's not up to the feds to make blanket decisions for the states. Each state is welcome to write, pass and enforce their own legislation.

In Raich, he stated that it's up to the feds to make blanket decisions for the states. No state is welcome to write, pass and enforce their own legislation.



Fact is the SCOTUS has become America’s public enemy number one and acts in the interests of the rich and powerful.

What is most alarming about this transfer of an American family`s property by government to a private profit making business entity is that the business entity, Pfizer Inc, is a internationally owned business operation with ``investors`` who are not even American citizens!

In other words, the force of America`s government is now being used to take the property of American citizens and hand it over to foreign financiers and investors, and such transfers of property are being upheld by the SCOTUS!

But heck, the writing was on the wall when the Stupid American allowed government to transfer the power of regulating Americas money to a private banking institution called the federal reserve. As Thomas Jefferson correctly warned:

``If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.``

Unfortunately, not one in ten thousand Americans understand how the federal reserve system, a private banking institution, is plundering the nation and picking the peoples pockets.

``History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance”, said James Madison

And, Jefferson further wrote: ``I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.``

Indeed, our founding fathers did in fact provide protection against such abuse when they authorize Congress, and only Congress, to coin our nation`s money and regulate the value thereof, and intentionally forbid a private banking institutions` notes to be made a legal tender.

The control over America`s money supply by a private banking institution may appear to be off topic at first glance but not to those who know how the force of government is used by the rich and powerful to plunder the wealth of nations. Control over the use of land, as well as the control over the issuance of a nation`s currency, has always been two of the most useful vehicles by which the rich and powerful [landlords and bankers] consolidate the wealth of nation’s into and under their control. In this case a private homeowner`s land being transferred to Pfizer Inc.

According to the SCOTUS "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", in this case Pfizer Inc!

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

If you think certain members of the SCOTUS are not Americas most formidable domestic enemies and assisting in the subjugation of our laws, and that a number of its members are not using their office of public trust to advance the fortunes of the rich and powerful, I suggest you study the dissenting opinion: KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.


Justice O'Connor sums up the tyranny of the majority in the following words:

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.[/i]

Also see the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas:
Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."[/i]

I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1-2, 8-13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.[/i]


JWK
ACRS

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant.[/i]
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 06:11 am
If this turns into one of those "bash the Supreme Court" threads it won't be much use. Best to look at the judgement rather than bang on about who delivered it.

A similar thing happened in Australia in 1992 when our High Court (the final appellate court - like the US Supreme Court) handed down a decision in a land rights case. The media went ballistic. According to them everyone's home was subject to native title. Not so. But it didn't stop people hurling all sorts of abuse at the High Court.

Quote:
The servant has become the master over those who created a servant


If you know anything about democratic theory and the doctrine of the separation of powers you would know how ridiculous that statement is. No-one is master of the Supreme Court just as no-one is master of the President or Congress. All of them have their role in protecting democracy. It's like a three-legged stool, saw one in half and the whole idea of democracy falls down. Of course if you would prefer the Supreme Court to be subservient to the President and/or the Congress then you obviously have no time for democracy. If so, come right and say that you don't like democracy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 11:05 am
john w k, Good post. It amazes to see most Americans accepting the high interest rates they are willing to pay on their credit cards - some over 20 percent. The banking system now charges a fee to withdraw your own money from ATMs. It's not enough that they hold your money at very low interest rates on money market and no interest bank accounts. I'm surprised there hasn't been a rebellion/revolt thus far against our banks.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 12:09 pm
Quote:
The servant has become the master over those who created a servant


goodfielder wrote:

If you know anything about democratic theory and the doctrine of the separation of powers you would know how ridiculous that statement is. No-one is master of the Supreme Court just as no-one is master of the President or Congress. All of them have their role in protecting democracy. It's like a three-legged stool, saw one in half and the whole idea of democracy falls down. Of course if you would prefer the Supreme Court to be subservient to the President and/or the Congress then you obviously have no time for democracy. If so, come right and say that you don't like democracy.


What is ridiculous is your comment concerning the quote. The quote does not suggest that someone is master of the Supreme Court. Quite the Contrary is true!

The servant [a servant created by the people called government] has become the master over those [the people] who created a servant.

But just for your information, unlike your touted “democracy” which our system is not, in our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, the Supreme Court, as well as the President and the Legislature, are all “subservient” to the intent of our Constitution as contemplated by the people who framed and ratified it.

In the instant case which concerns the taking of private property by government under constitutionally authorized authority, such an allowance was intended by the people for one purpose and one purpose only___ that property, if taken by government, was to be taken by government and used by government for a ``public purpose``, which is not the situation in KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al..

The property in question is being taken by government and then transferred to a private profit making corporation, Pfizer Inc. which will then earn profits for many of its stockholders who are not even American citizens!

Justice O'Connor sums up the tyranny of the majority opinion in the following words:

``Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.``


JWK
ACRS

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant![/i]
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2005 01:29 pm
Amen.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 02:27:15