Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

Quote:

...This kind of government tyranny should be disavowed by every decent American. Stepping up to the plate is Branch Banking and Trust Company (BB&T), headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C. BB&T is a full-service bank with 1,100 offices throughout the Southeast. On Jan. 25, BB&T announced that it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain. On behalf of its board of directors, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison explained, "The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact, it's just plain wrong." Mr. Allison added, "One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership."

source

I think this is something we can all approve of. It's nice to see somebody sticking up for the little guy.

0 Replies

Wow. If I had them in my area, I'd open an account today.

0 Replies

Yep. That kind of support for the public deserves equal support from the public.

0 Replies

Since this whole new wierd interpretation of imminant domain was dodged by SCOTUS on a 5/4 vote, we can hope the issue will be revisited by a different SCOTUS in the near future. If any issue strikes closer to the heart of the American principle than does property rights, I'm unaware of what it might be.

Meanwhile Americans who do recognize the seriousness of this must applaud the brave, courageous, and sensible, and we can't just sit back meekly and let it happen either. If you haven't notified your elected representatives, local, state, and national, of your feelings about this, I suggest you do so as soon as possible.

0 Replies

Yeah, a public area was by Eminent Domain taken away so that some rich people could profit from from it. Yup, GWB in concert with the owners of the Texas Rangers took public lands to build a stadium for the team and GWB = George Wants Banknotes, made $15 millions in the process selling his shares.

0 Replies

The stacking of the Supreme court with conservatives leaves little hope that if it does take up the question they will rule in favor of the little guy.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

The stacking of the Supreme court with conservatives leaves little hope that if it does take up the question they will rule in favor of the little guy.

Majority in Kelo v. New London : Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Dissenting in Kelo v. New London: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas. (Source)

Judging by this lineup, it seems reasonable to guess that today's Roberts court would have decided 5:4 for the little guy. All the liberals on the court voted for the hotel owner and the city that confiscated the regular people's property for him. All the conservatives voted against it -- unless you count Kennedy as a conservative. Maybe, au1929, you should revisit your opinion that liberal jurists are pro-little-guy?

0 Replies

Thomas
Right you are, My mistake.

0 Replies

just maybe the SCOTUS did not rule one way or the other on this issue but did rule on it being a local (state) issue.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

just maybe the SCOTUS did not rule one way or the other on this issue but did rule on it being a local (state) issue.

You mean like they did in Gonzalez v. Raich, the medical Marijuana case? Wink

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
just maybe the SCOTUS did not rule one way or the other on this issue but did rule on it being a local (state) issue.

You mean like they did in Gonzalez v. Raich, the medical Marijuana case?

Dear Thomas, how did the vote come down on that one?

0 Replies

Kelo was a cancer patient who grew marijuana for personal use as a sedative. This was legal under California Law, but illegal under federal law. A 6:3 majority of the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause gives the Federal government the rightful power to void California law, even though the Marijuana crossed no border, and nobody grew it or distributed it commercially.

The three judges in the minority were O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

0 Replies

interesting but not sure how to relate on to the other. I take it "States Rights" vs Commerce Clause is a sideline issue in the medical marijuana case and local (state) definiton of "public good" is the issue in the imminent domaine case. I am however, pretty sure, I am confused.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Kelo was a cancer patient who grew marijuana for personal use as a sedative.

That's possible, I suppose, but I think you mean Raich, not Kelo.

0 Replies

Details, Joe, details. (But thanks for the correction. And it's nice to see you.)

0 Replies

Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know