Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lol, don't you see what the key word is in this case, Deb, that brings about concern?

Property.

Cycloptichorn

Now what are you saying here? Are you implying that it is somehow unworthy for a person not to want the powerful to steal his home, or even his investment?

If it belongs to you, then there exists no moral right for another to take it, except in that very specific case where the government takes it for an absolute emergency.

You use the word "property" as though the desire to protect one's property from theft is ignoble. Is this, in fact, what you believe?

Lol, my point is that there is, as Deb so eloquently pointed out, a real disparity on the Right side of the political spectrum when it comes to the question of protection of rights; namely, Righties are only concerned when it comes to the question of whether property of someone is threatened. Forget about their lives, happiness, equality; none of that matters to the right side of the spectrum near as much as property, which is essentially money.

Therefore I, like Deb, do not see too much concern for one's fellow man in this case but rather just another concern for money.

Cycloptichorn

1. I know you will object if I suggest you back up your false assertion about the right and civil liberties, so I won't ask.
2. Once again, do you think there is something amiss with wanting the rich not to seize your property to line their pockets? If not, what are you talking about?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

The Court did not engage in judicial activism. Quite the opposite--the Court engaged in judicial restraint leaving the issue of what constitutes legitimate public use takings to the political processes available to the people in their respective states. It's not the Court's job to determine questions of state policy.

Again, the Supreme Court did not engage in judicial activism--it did not expand the Constitution. The extreme opposite occurred: The Court used judicial RESTRAINT. In other circumstances, you demand that the federal courts exercise restraint (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion).

Amazing Debra, simply amazing. In a previous post you wrote to me:

Quote:

“If we confine Fourteenth Amendment construction and jurisprudence in the manner that you demand in accordance with the framers' intent as you proclaim that intent to be, then the Fifth Amendment would only apply to federal action and the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to even hear the Kelo case.”

My response to you was:

Quote:

Ah! You are finally beginning to wake up! The fact is, as the case was presented, there was no federal question, but, the SCOTUS decided to not only take the case, but the majority opinion used its position of power to side with one of the litigants!

Justice O'Connor sums up part of 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.

And now, Debra, you once again assert, “The Court did not engage in judicial activism”. But the fact is, Debra, as the case was presented, there was no federal question, but, the SCOTUS decided to not only take the case, but the majority opinion used its position of power to side with one of the litigants! An you saying the majority of the Court did not engage in judicial activism by siding with one of the litigants, when there was no federal question to be answered by the SCOTUS?

You are once piece of work Debra. You make a definitive statement; your statement is refuted; you then wait a few days and make the same inaccurate statement.

Tell me Debra, on second thought, has anyone in this forum had the occasion to witness Debra acknowledging that she made a claim which in fact turned out to be inaccurate?

JWK

0 Replies

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.

In the real world:

1. The Fourteenth Amendment applies to State Action.

2. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. The U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies with respect to Constitutional issues.

4. The Supreme Court used judicial restraint leaving the scope of the public use doctrine with respect to economic development to be determined by the people through the democratic processes in their respective states.

Join the real world, JWK . . . or not.

0 Replies

In the real world, this ruling will open the door to abuses. Rich guys with city councilmen in their pocket, who can manipulate the system, will now be emboldened to try things they never would have dared to try before.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

In the real world, this ruling will open the door to abuses. Rich guys with city councilmen in their pocketm who can manipulate the system. will now be emboldened to try things they never would have dared to try before.

But surely if this allows the state to grab land legally that wouldn't have to happen? Couldn't the behaviour you're alluding to be done right up front?

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
In the real world, this ruling will open the door to abuses. Rich guys with city councilmen in their pocketm who can manipulate the system. will now be emboldened to try things they never would have dared to try before.

But surely if this allows the state to grab land legally that wouldn't have to happen? Couldn't the behaviour you're alluding to be done right up front?

Not sure what you mean. I am saying that the wealthy will attempt to seize the homes of common people simply because they want them.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

In the real world, this ruling will open the door to abuses. Rich guys with city councilmen in their pocket, who can manipulate the system, will now be emboldened to try things they never would have dared to try before.

OMG! NO! Gosh . . . who elected all those corrupt officials who are sitting in the pockets of all those rich guys?

Let me think.

Oh. It was the moral majority who want to post the Ten Commandments in the courthouse and impose their morals and religious beliefs on others via the operation of oppressive laws. Those darn corrupted politicians started banging the bible and promised you that they would keep GOD in our government and the homos outta marriage. They told you what you wanted to hear so they could get elected and then steal your homes and pilfer your pockets. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Woe are we.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
In the real world, this ruling will open the door to abuses. Rich guys with city councilmen in their pocketm who can manipulate the system. will now be emboldened to try things they never would have dared to try before.

But surely if this allows the state to grab land legally that wouldn't have to happen? Couldn't the behaviour you're alluding to be done right up front?

Not sure what you mean. I am saying that the wealthy will attempt to seize the homes of common people simply because they want them.

And no doubt they do now for sure. And I agree with you, that they probably do secret deals to do so (I hasten to add that in my country there have been convictions of crooked local government officers in just the situations you describe). But if the land grab is now legal why would they need to be surreptitious about it?

Debra_Law has made the point that the Supreme Court has merely handed down an interpretation - the states have to move to limit eminent domain so that all interests are balanced and protected (and I wish them well, it must be a heck of a job to draft legislation to cover the many situations that may arise).

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
In the real world, this ruling will open the door to abuses. Rich guys with city councilmen in their pocket, who can manipulate the system, will now be emboldened to try things they never would have dared to try before.

OMG! NO! Gosh . . . who elected all those corrupt officials who are sitting in the pockets of all those rich guys?

Let me think.

Oh. It was the moral majority who want to post the Ten Commandments in the courthouse and impose their morals and religious beliefs on others via the operation of oppressive laws. Those darn corrupted politicians started banging the bible and promised you that they would keep GOD in our government and the homos outta marriage. They told you what you wanted to hear so they could get elected and then steal your homes and pilfer your pockets. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Woe are we.

Regardless of how politicians capable of being influenced to grant favors to the rich and powerful got into office, the legal theft of land from the common man will certainly occur now that the Supreme Court has made it clear that eminent domain need not be only for emergencies. If I recall correctly, even the minority opinion implied this.

0 Replies

Brandon:

I'll tell you what Justice Scalia told the homosexual community when Scalia refused to acknowledge that the constitution protects their liberty interests:

"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else."

Likewise, I have nothing against the common property owner. I have nothing against them promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of eminent domain change over time. And you have the right to persuade your fellow citizens that your view of such matters are the best.

Take part in public debate. Write letters to your editor. Make speeches in your local park. Picket city hall. Write to your state legislatures. Make your concerns known. Exercise your rights protected by the First Amendment to petition your government for the redress of grievances.

But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. If the majority doesn't agree that your state eminent domain laws ought to be changed, you'll have to accept that your house might someday be taken and replaced with a shopping mall.

Get busy persuading! Good luck.

0 Replies

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.

CLICK HERE for entire posts:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

And--I'm honestly not being contentuous here, but it seems so often SCOTUS rulings take on a life of their own--when my state legilature limits power of eminent domain and the city council appeals that ruling all the way to the SC, we'll still see it bounced back to the state?

Debra responded:

Quote:

A city is a political subdivision of a state. It is a creature of the state and may only exercise municipal powers in accordance with state statutes.

Perhaps your state constitutional takings clause provides the following: "The State Legislature (or General Assembly) shall enact no law authorizing private property to be taken for public use without just compensation."

Accordingly, the only takings permissible would be those takings authorized by the state legislature. If the state legislature does not authorize your city council to take property for "economic development," then your city has no recourse except to follow state law. A municipality has no powers of eminent domain except those powers explicitly authorized by state statutes enacted by your state legislature.

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.

JWK

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

4. The Supreme Court used judicial restraint leaving the scope of the public use doctrine with respect to economic development to be determined by the people through the democratic processes in their respective states.

Not entirely so Debra!

The fact is, Debra, as the case was presented, there was no federal question, but, the SCOTUS decided to not only take the case, but the majority opinion used its position of power to side with one of the litigants! An you saying the majority of the Court did not engage in judicial activism by siding with one of the litigants, when there was no federal question to be answered by the SCOTUS?

You are once piece of work Debra. You make a definitive statement; your statement is refuted; you then wait a few days and make the same inaccurate statement.

Tell me Debra, on second thought, has anyone in this forum had the occasion to witness Debra acknowledging that she made a claim which in fact turned out to be inaccurate?

JWK

0 Replies

john w k I'd be more inclined to peruse your posts if you weren't so condescending. It really puts me off.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

john w k I'd be more inclined to peruse your posts if you weren't so condescending. It really puts me off.

Condescending? How so?

0 Replies

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.

. . .

It would be helpful if you would actually read what is posted and try to understand the context. Unfortunately, your understanding is undeniably skewed by your misperceptions about constitutional law with respect to what you believe it ought to be in comparison to what it actually is. Even then, I have found that you conveniently forget your own stated beliefs when it serves your agenda. You flip-flop more often than a fish out of water.

Again, the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of a property owner's claim that the STATE violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to STATES via the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the protections of the takings clause in the U.S. Constitution were merely the floor (the base). There is nothing to prevent the people from seeking greater protections from takings for economic development through the democratic processes of their own states.

Foxfyre was concerned, if the people in their states changed their state statutes or state constitution to prohibit takings for economic development, then a city council that wanted to take private property for economic development would sue its state and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

If you read the entire discussion in context, you would note that a city council is merely a political subdivision of the state--it is a creature of the state. A city council has no rights protected by the U.S. Constitution that it can invoke against its own creator, the state, in order to expand its powers of eminent domain in violation of state laws that limit that power.

The city council must follow the laws of the state that provided for the creation of the city and it has no federal claim against its own creator, the state.

There is no federal constitutional provision that allows a city council to sue its creator, the state, to expand city powers of eminent domain in contravention of state laws.

I'm sorry if you do not understand basic constitutional law or federal jurisdiction, nor the difference between an individual and a city council and what legal claims each may or may not bring in federal court--but that's your problem, not mine.

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

4. The Supreme Court used judicial restraint leaving the scope of the public use doctrine with respect to economic development to be determined by the people through the democratic processes in their respective states.

Not entirely so Debra!

The fact is, Debra, as the case was presented, there was no federal question, but, the SCOTUS decided to not only take the case, but the majority opinion used its position of power to side with one of the litigants! An you saying the majority of the Court did not engage in judicial activism by siding with one of the litigants, when there was no federal question to be answered by the SCOTUS?

JWK:

Your conclusion that there is no federal question based on the United States Constitution has no basis in fact or law.

Your conclusion is based on your erroneous interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We do not analyze constitutional questions according to the law as JWK believes the law to be.

We analyze constitutional questions in accordance with established case precedent.

When you are appointed to sit on bench of the United States Supreme Court and manage to overturn decades of Supreme Court precedent, then maybe people will listen to you. But until that happens--the rest of us have to apply the REAL law--not the law according to JWK.

Sorry if that ruffles your feathers.

0 Replies

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.

. . .

It would be helpful if you would actually read what is posted and try to understand the context.

But Debra my dear,

The context in which you responded to Brandon is really not the issue now, is it? What is at issue and within its context [the Kelo Case] is your inaccurate statement that:

Quote:

“The Court did not engage in judicial activism”[in the Kelo Case].

The fact is, Debra, as the case was presented, there was no federal question and such was even determined by the majority opinion! However, and contrary to your above statement, not only did the SCOTUS determine there was no federal question to rule upon, but went further and decided to used its position of power to side with one of the litigants in the case …state government officials, and in so doing, engaged in judicial activism.

Did the majority opinion not set 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?

Have a great day, my dear.

JWK

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

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.

. . .

It would be helpful if you would actually read what is posted and try to understand the context.

But Debra my dear,

The context in which you responded to Brandon is really not the issue now, is it?

Let's see. What is the issue? What is the context?

You responded to my post responding to Brandon's post wherein you claimed that my response to Brandon was wrong--that the Supreme Court could not possibly have exercised judicial restraint in determining the Kelo case because the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place and that by acting in complete absence of jurisdiction, it was actually engaging in activism rather than restraint.

Where did that lead us?

Oh yes . . .

I responded that you're the only one in the entire world that believes that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment to hear the Kelo case . . . the rest of us live in the real world and apply the real law.

Next, in an absurd attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case, you pointed out that I told Foxfyre that Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear her hypothetical city council case.

Even a moron should be able to understand that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in some cases; but not in all cases. It is elementary knowledge that the Supreme Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the Kelo case because the case arose under the Fifth Amendment applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court does NOT have jurisdiction to hear a case or controversy between a city council and its state if the city council would seek to expand its eminent domain powers in contravention of state laws.

Let me give you another example:

The Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Hypothetical: Convicted murderer lives in the (fictitious) city of Revenge in the State of Florida. Convicted murderer is sentenced to DEATH. Convicted murderer appeals his sentence all the way to the Supreme Court. He alleges that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment applicable to the STATE of FLORIDA via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Convicted murderer has stated a federal claim--an actual case or controversy--arising under the Constitution of the United States. Whether you believe it so or NOT, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Supreme Court rules that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment (applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). However, the Supreme Court notes that the protections afforded to individuals under the Eighth Amendment is the base--and that the people may decide for themselves through the democratic processes in their respective states whether they will impose the death penalty upon convicted murderers.

All of a sudden, the majority of the people in the State of Florida become opposed to the death penalty and they abolish the death penalty and provide that the maximum penalty for murder is life in prison without the possibility of parole.

However, the people who live in the City of REVENGE, Florida, are angry. They want convicted murderer put to death. The City of REVENGE then files a lawsuit in federal court against the STATE of FLORIDA seeking to reinstate the death penalty in the STATE.

RESULT: The federal court dismisses the City's lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The City has no federal claim--no right protected by the Constitution--that it can invoke against its creator, the State.

LESSON: The individual--convicted murderer--stated a case or controvery arising under the Constitution and the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear his challenge to the death penalty. The City of REVENGE did NOT state a case or controversy arising under the Constitution and the federal court did NOT have jurisdiction to hear its case.

Pretty simple concept.

Accordingly, your reference to a situation where there is no federal question jurisdiction with respect to the "city council" question posed by Foxfyre does NOT bolster your ridiculous allegation that their is no federal question jurisdiction in the Kelo.

The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction is some cases, but not in all cases.

Just because the Supreme Court would have absolutely no jurisdiction to hear a case with respect to a city council's desire to expand its eminent domain powers in contravention of state law (discussed within the context addressing the question posed by Foxfyre), that does not mean the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by a property owner claiming a violation of the takings clause.

Your attempt at bolstering your erroneous position was so lame, I can't believe that you found that it had any merit within the context.

Your conclusion that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case is not based on fact or law.

According, your next conclusion that the Supreme Court engaged in activism rather than restraint when it decided in favor of the State in the absense of jurisdiction is EQUALLY ERRONEOUS.

A false conclusion built upon a false conclusion doesn't bolster your refuted argument one iota.

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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

john w k wrote:

. . . You are once piece of work Debra. You make a definitive statement; your statement is refuted; you then wait a few days and make the same inaccurate statement. . . .

JWK

Your erroneous conclusion that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case does not refute my position that the Supreme Court did indeed have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case. The law clearly supports my position, not yours.

Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your erroneous conclusions are based upon your own interpretations and application of the Fourteenth Amendment, but our courts do not apply the law according to JWK--our courts apply the law in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. <---I know this is difficult for you to understand, but that's the way things are, like it or not.

0 Replies

Government Can Take Your Home if Someone Important Wants It

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know