Posted on 06/23/2005 12:39:28 PM PDT by pabianice
On June 23, 2005, a divided US Supreme Court stunned most Americans when it ruled 5-4 that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision awaited by both local governments and property owners. The case under consideration was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for a private office complex re. Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for public projects such as roads or schools. As of this decision, however, cities may now destroy private residences and clubs for projects that will provide more taxes or other economic benefits.
This has to be a godsend for towns and cities that have been stymied so far in their attempts to shut-down any businesses, corporations, or private groups of which they disapprove. Private gun ranges, airfields, RV tracts, hunting preserves, fishing resources, minority religious congregations, newspapers -- all are now fair targets for seizure and closure "for the economic benefit of the people." Chicago Mayor Daley's unlawful seizure and bulldozing of Meigs Airport in 2003 is now moot since he can say he did it "to improve the local tax base." Numerous gun ranges and hunting clubs across the country can now finally be closed by NIMBY pressure on the local city council or board of selectmen. Don't like those awful ATVs buzzing every weekend? Presto! That ATV tract will certainly return more taxes as a new strip mall. Resentful of that weird religious group meeting house down the road? No problemo. Their church is now a McDonalds. Don't want a lawful gun dealer in the Peoples Workers Paradise of Cambridge, Massachusetts? I feel so much better now that it's the local Ben and Jerry's.
This ruling only reinforces the general and growing consensus that the US court system is broken and that activist judges are dismantling the country, the Constitution for most intents and purposes having been flushed. The fall-out from this inexplicible ruling will be fast, fierce, and tragic. Stand by.
(c) ltn72@charter.net, 2005
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT IV TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT V TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Do you think most people are even going to notice what just happened?
By the way, does anyone know if Fox News is still going 24/7 with the Aruba thing?
Gracias.
I'll fuddle around a bit and figure things out. Thanks.
No don't worry about it. Few will feel the result. There will be no wave of such seizures. Federal rules force the payment of the market prices for such properties and the states are likely the same.
But even renters will be compensated should they be forced to move. It happened to me about thirty years ago. Being a student I didn't care and was happy to get the payoff.
Oops. Sorry about the wrong quote.
Someone at DU is claiming that the majority ruled that the courts did not have the power to decide what eminent domain is. If that was the case, why did they take the case?
There are no grounds for impeachment. We don't have the right to impeach for decisions we don't like.
What right did you lose from CFR? Other than having to listen to those too stupid to evade this idiotic law?
"We need to act on this. Everyone needs to get ready for a campaign to get this reveresed, even if a Constitutional amendment is the only recourse."
Tell me what good an amendment would do when these terrorist won't adhere to the constition already in place?
Time to "execute" our rights.
But what if I don't want to sell?
Even if I get a fair market offer, what if I'm not prepared to pay the capital gains taxes?
The best way to handle this ruling is to point out that this is what an activist liberal court will do, hand all the power to the government.
Stevens is a direct descendent of Methusala.
This will not impact federal activities and the Locals have been doing it for decades.
If one is ingenious enough, they are also subject to the "Samson Option".
Did you folks get the word on one of the guys who is having his home taken away? He was initially offered 60 K for a 10 room, on the water front house. They put it up to 120K but that is not even close to true value of the property alone.
Senile
Crazy
Old
Tyrannical
Useless
Sh*theads
This is hardly new or earthshaking but it is a great reminder that LOCAL authorities must be controlled. As it stands few even vote on local issues. That is how these tinhorned dictators get their power.
Yep - Doesn't matter who is on which side if I think the ruling is wrong.
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.