Posted on 06/23/2005 10:50:22 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
The SCOTUS has yet to publish the opinion on its web site. Even the libs in my office our outraged.
This should be voted in NOW. Before the Communists on the "Supreme" Court and their henchman in the legislature's complete their theft of the country.
This is a valid approach. Some of the original Constitutional debate concerned how to raise revenue with taxation of property being deemed impossible. Taxes on commerce and in particular foreign trade was seen as feasible. Unfortunately, the states have created departments to put a rate value on property and the Fed Gov has not stepped in to stop this practice, although they have the power.
They have no right whatsoever to be outraged. It was THEIR side of the court that did this. They should be dancing in the halls...........
I'm thinking this doesn't fall along the lines of your classic liberal or conservative definition in who is outraged. I've found tons with liberal ideas on some topics (abortion, gay rights, etc) are equally outraged over this as your "traditional" conservatives. There's some sort of weird division going on here, IMO...
Around where I live its the "conservative" republican dominated government that is trying to take over perfectly good homes by eminent domain so that shopping centers can get built... Go figure....
Point taken.
But I have an idea. We research the outrage they called the majority opinion in their "Americans are sharecroppers" decision they just made.
Then with much research, forethought and counsel, we draft an amendment that explicitly counteracts their decision.
Then when local 3rd-world style politicos try to steal land and give it to their cronies, we send the issue back to SCOTUS.
At that point SCOTUS is in a pinch. They'll have to honor the new amendment or declare themselves in outright defiance of it. When the latter happens, we have a constitutional crisis, and a huge stink occurs. They don't want that. We do. If they are in defiance, the courts credibility and even authority may be undermined. Basically we'll twist their arm until they say "uncle" to save their own power.
The only catch in my plan is SCOTUS decides which cases it takes. If its members wouldn't uphold our amendment, they'll definitely sidestep the case as it has the 2nd Amendment (and for exactly the same reason).
So ultimately, different circuit courts will issue conflicting opinions and different states will have different federal rulings.
And the moment a SCOTUS justice retires, we have a chance to take the case back.
My plan might not be perfect, and I'm sure it needs work but its better than what we have now, which is nothing. Anyone here feel free to critique it.
Can someone post the SC names and which President appointed them?
Realistically, I don't think any of this stands a chance right now. However, I'll keep it in my thoughts next time I blow out my birthday candles.
Have to get rid of (1). It's a separate issue, and will only divide and distract.
But I'm all for the rest of it. I wholeheartedly support a Constitutional amendment to reverese this abhorrent SCOTUS ruling.
Hmm, I saw a copy once. I am sure it exists, and I like it in it's current form.
This goes along with "squatter's rights," which held that someone who did not "ride his fence" and check his land in 7 years deserved to lose it to someone who was willing to live on it and develop it.
Now, we can debate the rightness or wrongness of either, but no one can deny that in the U.S. the long-term effect of this, as Jefferson would have liked, was to break up estates and move land into the hand of people; to have people DO something with their land (i.e., to improve life for everyone); and accelerate economic growth.
Yes, that's right. The majority of justices in the majority opinion were nominated by Republicans.
The alternative would have required the Court to overturn 170 years worth of legal precedent. That might have been the right call---but it certainly would have been an "activist" Court to do such a thing.
Yeah, it's a quaint museum piece now.
and I like it in it's current form.
The current form has too many crayon markings, strike outs and white outs on it. I prefer the original even if government could give a flying ____ what it says.
2. Someone can come along and tell the government that they could do more public good with your property.
3. The notion that a person cannot use their own land in way of their choosing (even if the only beneficiary is the owner), but the use must benefit the government or risk a 'better citizen' convincing the government that they should get your property...for the public good...is communism
4. It is always open to opinion as to what the best public use is for a certain project. By associating public benefit with an increase in the tax base, the new 'rule' espoused by the high court, it necessarily puts uses that do not provide maximum taxes in a detrimental position.
This is communism. The property is yours until we decide we can do something better with it.
Same thing in my Town. And I bet the developers in the New London case aren't card carrying Dem'RATS. I am truly outraged. Let's look at this case in the extreme (or perhaps not so extreme). Suppose I own a basic suburban McMansion on a sixteenth of an acre and I want to build a tennis court and Olympic size pool. The local zoning code requires a a half acre lot and the zoning board denies my request for an area variance. I go to my neighbor, who has two acres and I offer to buy land from him to give me the acreage needed to build the tennis court and pool. My neighbor says "no" if only because he can't swim and hates tennis. So I go the Town Board and ask them to condemn my neighbor's property and deed title to me so that I can make the improvements, which will increase the taxable value of my realty and provided needed construction jobs to a half dozen illegals from south of the border. Mindful of the $10,000 that I have donated to their political party over the years and with a "wink and a nod" with respect to future donations, the Town Board approves my request and exercises the power to acquire the property by eminent domain.
Thank you, I tried finding a prior post but ended up with old posts from the time in went to the Surpremes.
As my tagline for some time now has read:
And that should be for starters..
NEXT; buildings OWNed by Washington D.C..
and after that federal law should be subservient to State law.. on all things within the boundarys of that State..
THEN.. let the States fight it out on how big the federal gov't should BE...
In number (2), maybe "public infrastructure" should be defined more strictly, and the proposed amendment should specify the situations in which property seizure is warranted...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.