Reply
Tue 20 Dec, 2005 03:59 pm
Has anyone noticed the imminent domain cases that are springing up across the country? Fox News' Hannity and Colmes featured the case in Riviera Beach, Florida, where the residents are being forced out of their "blighted" homes so a yacht club can be built. This is horrible news and could result in the end of democracy. More of the media needs to focus on these cases and something has to be done to stop it.
Are these cases where the government is going to appropriate their property .... at any moment.
Welcome to A2K, carter9889.
emminent domain is almost always a local government issue, do you think the supremes just get involved?
ok already eminant. I graduated 8th grade, I can't know all this stuff.
Ticomaya
LOL "any minute now" but also "momentarily" --- i.e. only for the briefest time.
After that it reverts to the previous owners!!!
Louise_R_Heller wrote:Ticomaya
LOL "any minute now" but also "momentarily" --- i.e. only for the briefest time.
After that it reverts to the previous owners!!!
The Pensacola tribe should be quite excited, then!
when I was a kid I used to recite the Pledge of allegiance
"One nation under GOd, Indivisible"
as
One nation under God, ina dirigible"
Jun 23, 2005
Supreme Court Rules American Homes Can Now Be Seized for Private Use
(Washington, D.C.) The Supreme Court ruled today that local governments have broad power to confiscate private property in the name of "economic development."
They handed down a 5-4 ruling against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who claimed the city is trying to illegally force them to sell their property. The city wants to make way for a hotel, an office building and other privately funded facilities.
Government agencies including city and county governments have long been allowed to condemn private property so that public buildings, roads and other infrastructure can be built. Called "eminent domain," this practice is constitutional as long as the power is exercised strictly in accordance with the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." However, the new ruling will allow local governments to claim property for the benefit for private entities, rather than restricting eminent domain to acquiring land for public use.
"This ruling sets a frightening precedent that will affect poor and middle class families across the nation." said Michael Dixon, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Dazzled by the possibility of increasing tax revenue and employment opportunities, local government officials will now be able to claim entire communities for the benefit of private corporations."
While the Libertarian Party supports the right of corporations to do business, "we even more strongly support the constitutional rights of the individual," Dixon declared. "And those constitutional rights are being trampled on by local governments around the country."
Because the Supreme Court's decision gives government agencies much broader power to confiscate private property, the Libertarian Party calls on both state legislatures and Congress to stand up for the rights of private landowners.
my emphasis is added
Quote:The Constitution of the United States of America
...
Article III.
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
...
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Article VI.
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
...
Amendment V. (1791)
No person shall
...
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...
Amendment XIV. (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Hmmm! I must be misinterpreting this Constitution thing! Looks to me like five judges on the USA Supreme Court have amended all this by delegating to themselves the power to legislate amendments to the Constitution. Can they do that? Regardless, they did do that!
But then, wudda I know?
OK Ican you made your point, what is it? The supremes ruled that this is a "local" issue without taking a position on the merits of the case, essentially throwing it back to the state level to "work it out" You got a problem with local jurisdiction?
dyslexia,
I think this answers your question.
my emphasis is added
Quote:Amendment XIV. (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Not only is federal power limited by our Constitution, as amended, so is state power.
Ok ican, so you aver that states rights (not given to the fed) are subservient to federal proclivity? I'm not arguing with you, I am only determining your position re states vs fed rights.
I would add that "due process" is determined by local/state law according to the supremes. Are you stating that "due process" only applies to fed process?
As soon as I read that emminant domain was being used for business I was mortified. I have a hard enough time dealing with emminant domain as it was originally set up. This new variation means even more that you can never "own" a home. It's an absolute disgrace.
My interpretation of Ican's excellent summary is that he is saying that both the federal government and the state governments are prohibited by the Constitution from depriving persons of their property except by "due process". Eminent Domain has always been utilized by governments in the past but the recent USSC decision has appeared to widen that procedure. Currently, state governments are drafting local legislation to prohibit the use of "eminent domain" in the USSC's new sense.
In summing up I understand that the local government (whatever that may be) does have constituional authority to use iminent domain as due process and that this issue is be resolved at the local level. Is that correct?
The controversy appears to be not so much the use of Eminent Domain( used by both state and federal authorities--Expressways, Airports, etc) but the use of eminent domain CHIEFLY TO REPLACE PROPERTY WITH OTHER PROPERTIES WHICH PROVIDE MORE TAX RETURNS FOR THE STATE IN QUESTION.
OK, I was refering to ican denial of iminent domain has legitimate due process. The other issue of "purpose" the supremes left to be decided at the local/state level. I don't think "purpose" is the issue here (from what I read of Ican) but perhaps it is. Ican seems to be saying that the issue of eminent domain does not constitute due process.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace