1
   

Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

 
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jul, 2005 06:16 pm
Debra_Law wrote:

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.


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 yet, in spite of your statement above which I agree with, the SCOTUS interfered in a state matter and set a new precedent by saying there is no distinction between “for public use” as found in the Constitution, and, “for private use” as not found within a constitutional context, when folks in government use their authority to take the property of a citizen.


Come now Debra, be a good girl and stop making things up___ claiming I have said something with reference to “jurisdiction” which can nowhere be found in this thread!


Debra_Law wrote:
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.


Did it ever dawn on you Debra, that what they may learn is your persistence in making things up?

Have a pleasant evening my dear!



JWK
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 02:28 am
making things up
john w k 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.




Before I go "making things up again" and accuse you of saying that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case--when you claim you never said that--Let me get this straight:

You never said the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case.

You said nothing about the Court not having jurisdiction to take the case and decide if there was a federal question.

You have repeatedly said there was no federal question.

You said the Court ruled in favor of state and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter.

Shocked

Okay . . . thanks for clearing this up.

Laughing

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."

Of course, I was responding to your allegation that there was no federal question and the Court ruled in favor of state and it did so without jurisdiction in the matter.




JWK wrote:
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.



My response to Foxfyre's question with respect to her hypothetical lawsuit between the city council and the state does NOT support your above statement. The two situations are different. Foxfyre's hypothetical did not involve a case or controversy arising under the Constitution--accordingly there is no federal question jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Kelo case does involve a case or controversy arising under the Constitition. It involves the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Go back and read the previous posts on this subject.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 12:57 pm
Re: making things up
Debra_Law wrote:


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."


But Debra, you did write
IN POST POSTED Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:32 pm


Quote:
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.


You’re making things up Debra. I never indicated the S.C. did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case. And now it appears you have made so many things up you can’t even keep track of what you make up from day to day.


JWK
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 01:53 pm
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 by claiming that you really did say the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case: There was no federal question, the court decided the case and did so without jurisdiction.

ROFL

You flip flop more often than a fish outta water.

So tell us, JWK, did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction or not?

Your response really doesn't matter because you'll later claim that you never said it.

Kindergarten class is over.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 03:19 pm
Subject Matter Jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear the subject matter of the actual case or controvery presented and decide the case on the merits.

Kelo v. City of New London was appealed from a decision by a lower state court in favor of the city of New London to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

The highest court in the State of Connecticut found that the use of eminent domain for economic development did not violate the public use clause of the Connecticut State Constitution nor the public use clause of the United States Constitution.

Certiorari is the writ that an appellate court issues to a lower court in order to review its judgment for legal error when no appeal is available as a matter of right. The United States Supreme Court is careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important to merit the use of its limited resources.

The Kelo plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court for judicial review of the final judgment from the Connecticut Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court granted Certiorari to consider whether the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development, rather than, as in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), for the elimination of slums and blight.

With respect to the United States Constitution, the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the States via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Inasmuch as the Kelo case was a case or controversy arising under the Constitution, the Supreme Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case presented for judicial review and issue a decision.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2005 07:21 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 03:45 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 12:37 pm
immoral
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. Rolling Eyes

Therefore, it's difficult to empathize with your constitutional tantrum over the Kelo case.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 03:22 pm
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.


Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 04:47 pm
Re: immoral
Debra_Law wrote:
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. Rolling Eyes

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

I guess when you express outrage over a legal decision, it's righteous indignation, but when I do, it's a tantrum. I resist your characterization of what I said, and repeat my actual position that it is wrong to take things that don't belong to you. Yes, I know there are counter-examples, but the statement is still true in general.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 05:43 pm
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. On the other hand, if the government takes control of your body, your freedom, your liberty--the loss of those things can never be compensated.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 08:00 pm
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.


Rolling Eyes


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.

Rolling Eyes


JWK
0 Replies
 
DorjeChang
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:01 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:52 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
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.

The validity, or lack thereof, of my opinion concerning eminent domain is not dependent on my opinion about other civil rights issues. You cannot disprove someone's assertion by impeaching his character. That is an elementary fact of debate.

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

I was discussing whether the government has the right to take things that don't belong to it, not what recourse I might have after they do.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2005 09:53 pm
DorjeChang wrote:
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.

You are right. The Bureau of Indian Affairs ought to be made to get its act together.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 01:36 am
john w k wrote:
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.


Rolling Eyes


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.

Rolling Eyes


JWK



Either the Court had jurisdiction or it didn't. You can't have it both ways--not if you apply the real law instead of the make-believe law according to JWK.

See my previous post: Jurisdiction Post

Subject Matter Jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear the subject matter of the actual case or controvery presented and decide the case on the merits.

Accordingly, jurisdiction must be determined as a threshhold matter. If the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it does not have authority to hear the subject matter of the acutal case or controversy presented and decide the case on the merits. This is what happened in the state takings case of Barron v. City of Baltimore which reached the Supreme Court in 1833. The Supreme Court determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide the case or controversy presented on its merits as a threshhold matter and dismissed the case.

However, our entire country was thereafter embroiled in a bloody civil war and the UNION prevailed. This was a significant turning point in the development of the constitutional law of our country. Our federal government was vindicated and strengthened. As as result of the war, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. Thereafter, our constitutional landscape changed forever. Accordingly, when another takings case reached the Supreme Court in 1897, the Supreme Court found that it did have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your problem, JWK, is that you do not acknowledge the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment and its impact on decades of constitutional jurisprudence with respect to the Kelo case. (Which is ironic and hypocritical, because in other situations, when it serves your agenda -- e.g., Schiavo case--you have no difficulty invoking the present day interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment.) If the Kelo case had reached the Supreme Court in 1833 rather than 2005, then your argument that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction would have merit. But, you ignore all that has happened in this country since the civil war and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and you desire to freeze yourself in a time that no longer exists and ignore from a very real and pragmatic perspective how the law of the land has developed over the decades and ignore the America that exists today.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 05:07 am
Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applied only to the federal government and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear a state takings case. See Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833):

The Supreme Court wrote:
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.



AFTER the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment was made applicable to the STATES via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and DECIDE state takings cases. See CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226 (1897):


The Supreme Court wrote:
. . .

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. . . .


http://laws.findlaw.com/us/166/226.html

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.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 07:29 pm
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.

Justice O'Connor sumed 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.[/i]

JWK
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 01:42 pm
john w k wrote:
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?


It is not a mischaracterization. Why do you have so much trouble with the English language and basic legal terminology? You don't know the meaning of the word proclamation; you don't know the meaning of the word jurisdiction. If you're just being childish, I told you before: Kindergarten class is over.

If you do not understand the words used, I suggest that you look them up in the dictionary. You proclaimed (look it up) that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, but you haven't demonstrated that you even know what jurisdiction is. The concept of jurisdiction has been explained to you, but you ignore the meaning of the word that you throw around as if you were an legitimate authority on the subject--when its clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You proclaimed something to be true; it wasn't true. Hence, your proclamation had absolutely no basis in fact or law.



JWK wrote:
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.


Please provide authority--other than an article written by yourself (because you're not an expert; you're not an authority)--to prove that jurisdiction (the court's authority to hear and decide a case on its merits) excludes the authority to decide the case on its merits.

Well? You can't do it because your use of the word jurisdiction in your "truth is" proclamation is idiotic.

Let me try to make this more simple. Let's say that I'm a parent of a baby who wears diapers. I hire you to serve as my babysitter. I grant you authority to change the baby's diaper.

If we apply the same nonsense that you apply to the meaning of jurisdiction, then you would interpret your authority to change the baby's diaper as follows: I had authority to take the soiled diaper off the baby, but I had no authority to place a clean diaper on the baby.

Well, you would have mangled the concept of changing the diaper just like you have mangled the concept of subject matter jurisdiction over a case.

Citing Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion doesn't support your proclamation. There are nine justices on the Supreme Court and ALL NINE JUSTICES acknowledge that the Fifth Amendment's "public use" clause applies to the STATES (Connecticut included) via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, all nine justices acknowledge that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide the case on its merits.

Justice O'Connor wrote:
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."


READ IT--UNDERSTAND IT: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitition is applicable to the States (including Connecticut) via the Fourteenth Amendment. Inasmuch as you cite Justice O'Connor as authority for your position, it is FOLLY on your part that you deliberately ignore Justice O'Connor's statement that is directly on point and conclusively disproves your proclamation that the Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the controversy presented on its merits.

Again, your proclamation that the Supreme Court decided the case and did so without jurisdiction has absolutely no basis in fact or law.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 04:23 pm
Debra_Law wrote:



Bla, bla, bla,



john w k wrote:


But Debra, the color is black.



Debra_Law wrote:


The color is not black, its white.


john w k wrote:


Well, the color is white.


Debra_Law wrote:
No! The color is black, bla, bla, bla,
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 08:04:53