Gov't can take your house if THEY want to

[EricTheRed 0]

I'll bite that one.

Liberal. They based their opinion on existing case law, once again proving that the slippery slope does indeed exist.

I'd take a TRUE conservative anyday. I just want one that believes that the constitution has more to do with the way we should run the country than the bible does.

Haven't been many of those for a long time.

There was a really good reason that our founders intent was to keep god and country seperated.

illegible usually

[mailin 0]

A good resource for those that are unaware of original intent:


www.originalintent.org



Jen

Arianna Frances

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

>try to take my home and you will see my arsenel!

And then you will become just another terrorist, and get chalked up as a victory in the war on terror when they take you down.

Actually with the Patriot act, he could be labeled a terrorist first, and then they could take the house.

Since he's already admitted to having "an arsenal" and intent to use force against the government he's certainly guilty. It's no longer the act that is illegal, but the intent to act.

if everyone sits and analyses everything all the time while they are taking peeps houses. and sits there and thinks "well at least it is not me", is part of the problem, me included.

if the population as a whole is to weak to stand up and fight for there rights, they will all go away... slowly but surely..

i love this country, but i also thank god i have citizenship elswhere.. just in case...

i have two, compleatly leagal registard weapons, that is my arsenal. but if somone wants to take my house, there will be a fight. i would follow all paths to keep my home. leagal and all, and if i was backed into a corner without any options left, i would still fight with whatever i had left.

[rushmc 23]

This is the first time (that I know of) that eminent domain has been used to tranfer ownership to a non-governmental body.

This decision is really messed up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

This is the first time (that I know of) that eminent domain has been used to tranfer ownership to a non-governmental body.

This decision is really messed up

I'm aware of more than one. Specifically, my law school neeed to expand. They had this whole block except for a little liquor store. California eminent domain law allowed educational institutions, public or private, to take private property for purposes of use or expansion.

We know it's been tried elsewhere - that's why I listed states that have laws against it. Legislators typically don't make laws to prevent something from occurring that's never been done.

Yeah, this is fucked up. What did the poster say about this court following established case law? Well, this is case law established in the 30's and 60's that turned prior case law on its head. A court choosing to ignore the past 30 years of case law has legitimate arguments for doing so.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[markd_nscr986 0]

The rights of the individual lose out again..........

We are becoming more and more like the PRC everyday

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[happythoughts 0]

This is one of two techniques that has been used so effectively in the past that no one really cares what a state courts says anymore.

1 - The Fed govt takes away your taxes and then only gives them back to the states that mind them. "Do what we say or you lose all your Fed education dollars..." The Fed govt taxes us into poverty and then controls us with our own money. If we only allowed the Fed govt to support the army and road building, they'd need a lot less and couldn't threaten/control.

2 - Most activist groups of any kind just ask for a SC ruling. It overrides the state court and make the state court and legislatures into impotent fixtures.

10 years ago, you would have laughed if I said you couldn't smoke in a restaurant. "That's just California..." Now it's everywhere.

2 years ago, you would have laughed if I said you couldn't smoke on a beach.

People laugh a little less each time as their rights slowly erode.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

The rights of the individual lose out again..........

We are becoming more and more like the PRC everyday

Not exactly. If the gov took the property for their own gain, it would be PRC. But the gov takes the property for the benefit of corps, hence Fascism. See, varrying degrees/type of Naziism have to disected to understand what their intent is and who it benefits. This clearly benefits corps over gov.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

This is one of two techniques that has been used so effectively in the past that no one really cares what a state courts says anymore.

1 - The Fed govt takes away your taxes and then only gives them back to the states that mind them. "Do what we say or you lose all your Fed education dollars..." The Fed govt taxes us into poverty and then controls us with our own money. If we only allowed the Fed govt to support the army and road building, they'd need a lot less and couldn't threaten/control.

2 - Most activist groups of any kind just ask for a SC ruling. It overrides the state court and make the state court and legislatures into impotent fixtures.

10 years ago, you would have laughed if I said you couldn't smoke in a restaurant. "That's just California..." Now it's everywhere.

2 years ago, you would have laughed if I said you couldn't smoke on a beach.

People laugh a little less each time as their rights slowly erode.

1 - The Fed govt takes away your taxes and then only gives them back to the states that mind them. "Do what we say or you lose all your Fed education dollars..." The Fed govt taxes us into poverty and then controls us with our own money. If we only allowed the Fed govt to support the army and road building, they'd need a lot less and couldn't threaten/control.

Right, mind them to do what? LOwer speed limits, raise drinking ages, mandate seat belts.... all corporate agendas.... Fascism.

2 - Most activist groups of any kind just ask for a SC ruling. It overrides the state court and make the state court and legislatures into impotent fixtures.

And the US Sup Ct hear 150 cases/yr, so what are the odds of having it heard?

People laugh a little less each time as their rights slowly erode.

Please. This smoker's right nonsense grows deeper all the time. The right to counsel at criminal trial is guaranteed under the 6th as I recall. The protection from unreasonable searcha nd seizure is stated under the 4th. Cigs have no rights or protections - there is no errosion with that. That's like saying the right to drive and speed is be erroded, and that's something I like doing.

[SkydivingNurse 0]

They can try. They can also hope that their snipers get me before I run out of ammo. .300 Winchester Magnum. It'll be Red Fucking Dawn here.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

They can try. They can also hope that their snipers get me before I run out of ammo. .300 Winchester Magnum. It'll be Red Fucking Dawn here.

SkydivingNurse


I know another Murse who shtdives!

BTW, not a real good thing to write on a public forum.....

[dbattman 0]

For those of you unfamiliar the sanctity of private property rights, that you have paid for with your time and hard work, takes on an entirely different meaning when you've been threatened with this. My response was either start supplying information about the project so I can make an informed decision, make me a decent on the house instead of just offereing me the notes, or take me to court. They went away, but with this new ruling I don't know what would have happened.

Prepare your escape plans, people. People figured out how to get government to use the threat of deadly force to take what you have worked for and transfer it to themselves. The republic is dying, but unfortunately there really is nowhere to emmigrate to anymore.

[marks 0]

Quote

BTW, not a real good thing to write on a public forum.....

that very fear you have there shows that the government IS effecting you!!!! BIG TIME!!!!

you have the right to say what you want!!!!.....

but not being able to say it, is too much control....

one day, im sure there will be another revolution.

[kallend 2,106]

I guess I owe beer. I agree with Scalia and Renqhist

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But the gov takes the property for the benefit of corps, hence Fascism.

corps help generate income, thus tax revenue. The government is looking out for itself

Private property rights are really in trouble. It's a bad place to be. I don't trust the right or the left in this.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I guess I owe beer. I agree with Scalia and Renqhist

And Thomas and O'Connor - bet that hurts

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The right to counsel at criminal trial is guaranteed under the 6th as I recall. The protection from unreasonable searcha nd seizure is stated under the 4th.

Really? The Fifth Amendment provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." It turns out that, thanks to some Big Government justices, that Constitutional right is not guaranteed anymore. Instead, "use" is now defined as "purpose." Since anything can be for a public "purpose" the government can now take your property on terms it feels are "just compensation" and let another private entity have it for their own "use," so long as it's a public "purpose."

So, the right to counsel at a criminal trial might be challenged now if the states re-define their "criminal" codes into "administrative" codes.

You mentioned "search and seizure." What this court did with redefining "public use" is the same as redefining "probable cause" to mean "possible cause."

This comes on the heels of the marijuana case, wherein this court held that the federal government can regulate ANYTHING under the commerce clause, since there is nothing that the commerce clause cannot touch anymore.

"Government ROCKS! Private individuals SUCK!"

We are moving back to Kings and Peasants.

I wonder whether an "equal protection" argument would apply. Probably not. I think this court would only use a "rational basis" test to determine whether the government's law allowing forced transfer of property from one private person to another private person violated the Equal Protection clause. After all, the right to buy and keep private property is not a right that our forefathers viewed as particularly important.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. I'm thinking of other rights that may be re-defined.

First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under common usage, "respect" means "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem." Thus, any law doing so is invalid, and Congress may only pass laws "disrespecting" religion.

Second:" well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Hmmm. It says, "keep and bear arms." It says nothign about buying, selling or transferring. Thus, Congress can make a law banning all sales, purchases or transfers. Sure, you can bear and keep the arms you have, but if you don't have any, you cannot get them. Good way to ban guns.

Oh, we can keep going here...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Never thought I would see it either............

Conservative Justices backing individual rights and the Liberals backing the Corporations

Next thing you know,I'll be taking drunk driving lessons from Teddy Kennedy

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'll be taking drunk driving lessons from Teddy Kennedy

Well, you always want your instructors to be experienced in that department.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Conservative Justices backing individual's property rights and the Liberals backing the Corporations

Next thing you know,I'll be taking drunk driving lessons from Teddy Kennedy

Sorry, needed to correct that. And it fits the stereotype so much better. Although I do think that politicians backing corporations isn't all that far off, but not in the SC, more likely in congress - and not party specific at all.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

But the gov takes the property for the benefit of corps, hence Fascism.

corps help generate income, thus tax revenue. The government is looking out for itself

Private property rights are really in trouble. It's a bad place to be. I don't trust the right or the left in this.

That's a way to circumvent the definition of Fascism. I could do that with Communism. Communism is a way the government can better their position by executing people in the streets so inact deterrence and peace in the streets. And by closing the borders, they can maintain more people so they can better their manufacturing base...... see, we can rationalize anything....truth is this law is Fascist by intent, since it was likely backed by corps./amicus.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

The right to counsel at criminal trial is guaranteed under the 6th as I recall. The protection from unreasonable searcha nd seizure is stated under the 4th.

Really? The Fifth Amendment provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." It turns out that, thanks to some Big Government justices, that Constitutional right is not guaranteed anymore. Instead, "use" is now defined as "purpose." Since anything can be for a public "purpose" the government can now take your property on terms it feels are "just compensation" and let another private entity have it for their own "use," so long as it's a public "purpose."

So, the right to counsel at a criminal trial might be challenged now if the states re-define their "criminal" codes into "administrative" codes.

You mentioned "search and seizure." What this court did with redefining "public use" is the same as redefining "probable cause" to mean "possible cause."

This comes on the heels of the marijuana case, wherein this court held that the federal government can regulate ANYTHING under the commerce clause, since there is nothing that the commerce clause cannot touch anymore.

"Government ROCKS! Private individuals SUCK!"

We are moving back to Kings and Peasants.

I wonder whether an "equal protection" argument would apply. Probably not. I think this court would only use a "rational basis" test to determine whether the government's law allowing forced transfer of property from one private person to another private person violated the Equal Protection clause. After all, the right to buy and keep private property is not a right that our forefathers viewed as particularly important.

Damn lawyers . I wasn't aware the 5th had the priv property use in there. I know it is packed with many things tho.

OK, so then the gov is Fascist with this and subverts the document that protets us.

This comes on the heels of the marijuana case, wherein this court held that the federal government can regulate ANYTHING under the commerce clause, since there is nothing that the commerce clause cannot touch anymore.


Furthermore, RICO has the word, "commerce" in it, which allows them to seize cars used to pick up hookers, abortion clinic protestors who block doorways, hence commerce is impacted.

I think you guys are starting to agree with me that this country is a FAscist POS. Most won't admit it, but the elements are there. We've gone from individual rights to utilitarianism, a Communistic concept.

[mattsplat 0]

I lost a lot of respect for the government when I got hit with inheritance taxes. If they ever tried to take my house or my business for there own personal financial gain I would contaminate this property so bad they would not be able to use it for ten years.

[flifree 0]

someone may have asked this already, but does anyone know how the local governments will valuate the property once they deem it fit for their use? i'm sure they will lo-ball it somewhere short of a condemned property, but that will be a scary issue once the dominos start to fall. i think it will be slowly then suddenly. it will take major balls to be the first to do it even though it's legal now, but once the first one goes.....whoa nelly!

i have actually aborted my pursuit of two investment properties this past week b/c of this case. i might not be in the majority, but if i am the housing industry is in for a serious enema!