rbanfield 0 #26 November 6, 2005 If the government ever decides to seize my house or neighborhood in order to hand it over to a private corporation for the purpose of tax revenue when the house and neighborhood are not in disrepair then I will be ready and I will not be taken alive. I almost want to take a trip to Oakland so I can run a theory by them . Those idiots up in Washington may let my country go to shit, but for that man whom the district is named and who currently resides on Mount Vernon, Virginia.... this ones for you God Bless America Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,067 #27 November 6, 2005 QuoteQuotemisconception time again....the extreme leftie view is that everything belongs to everybody equally. The extreme rightie view is survival of the fittest, if you can take it, it's yours. Let's not forget the popular Supreme Court ruling from June of this year and how the justices voted. In the case of "Can the government take your land and hand it over to someone who can 'perhaps' make more money?" Yes, the goverment can redistribute property for no good reason: John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer No, the government cannot redistribute land to some commercial entity so that the city can make more money: Sandra Day O'Conner, William H. Rehnquist, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas. Clearly this was a conservative ploy . Let's paraphrase a little Limbaugh on this one: "the only thing we the people are left to do is lay down the sandbags, load up the rifles, and put grandma on the roof with a flag 'Don't Tread on Me'". Right, the liberal wing interpreted the law as it is, while the activist conservatives wanted to change it to what it should be by legislating from the bench.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 November 7, 2005 QuoteOn Thursday, the House voted to defend the rights of landowners by cutting federal funds to municipalities Assholes - they have the duty to make it "illegal" not jsut 'hint' at it with funding bills. wusses ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 November 7, 2005 Quotethey have the duty to make it "illegal" not jsut 'hint' at it with funding bills. They can't make it illegal. The SCOTUS issued a decision stating that it is authorized under the Takings clause of the 5th Amendment. Thus, the law making it illegal would be stricken down as unconstitutional. But, Congress can make it hurt. If it will eliminate cashflow, then odds are that many municipalities will play ball. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 November 7, 2005 QuoteQuotethey have the duty to make it "illegal" not jsut 'hint' at it with funding bills. They can't make it illegal. The SCOTUS issued a decision stating that it is authorized under the Takings clause of the 5th Amendment. Thus, the law making it illegal would be stricken down as unconstitutional. But, Congress can make it hurt. If it will eliminate cashflow, then odds are that many municipalities will play ball. It will change as soon as some local govt. tries to take the Kennedy compound to put up a shopping mall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 November 7, 2005 QuoteQuotethey have the duty to make it "illegal" not jsut 'hint' at it with funding bills. They can't make it illegal. The SCOTUS issued a decision stating that it is authorized under the Takings clause of the 5th Amendment. Thus, the law making it illegal would be stricken down as unconstitutional. In a very split decision SCOTUS made it ok. Isn't it Congress' duty, then, to revise the law, for clarity - especially since SCOTUS got it wrong? If the law is revised, (5th amendment revised then?) then wouldn't SCOTUS then be obliged to support the updated wording/intentions. Congress is taking either the easy path, or it's only a temporary bandaid until they do the right thing. If making it illegal is unconstitutional, why isn't making the same intent "hurt" with loss of funding resources also unconstitutional??? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 November 7, 2005 QuoteIsn't it Congress' duty, then, to revise the law, for clarity - especially since SCOTUS got it wrong? I think you are confused. Laws must pass Constitutional muster. The SCOTUs has determined that emminent domain is acceptable for civic redevelopment under the Fifth Amendment. There are only three ways to get around that. The first is to have another SCOTUS decision overrule it. The second way is to amend the US Constitution to ban the activity. The third way is for the individual states to ban it. Congress cannot amoend the Constitution. The best and most effective way of doing it is option 3. The states can allow protections that prevent the state, county or other municipality or corporation to seize land via emminent domain for private development and use. States are now doing that. It doesn't prevent the feds from seizing land that way, but the feds typically don't have those same interests. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
