Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS Ruling Opens the Door for Government to Destroy Unpopular Private Clubs, Businesses
Kerry Country ^ | 6/23/05 | ltn72

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.

More Kerrycountry


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: connecticut; eminentdomain; kelo; landgrab; scotus; tyranny; tyrrany
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-324 next last
Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

To: Sunshine Sister
What recourse do we have?

Two, one is bloodless.

82 posted on 06/23/2005 1:31:37 PM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mizmoutarde

I heard an excellent idea on one of the other threads. A contitutional amendment clarifying the term "Public Use" as used in the fifth amendment. Now THIS would be an appropriate use of the amendment process!


83 posted on 06/23/2005 1:33:03 PM PDT by Lekker 1 ("Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"- Harry M. Warner, Warner Bros., 1927)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: stevio

I'm going to contact my congressional delegation and demand that some judges be removed for their inability to READ THE CONSTITUTION!


84 posted on 06/23/2005 1:34:02 PM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MJDuncan1982

So are you all an the "other" site aware that these are the most liberal of the justices?


85 posted on 06/23/2005 1:34:08 PM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1; MJDuncan1982

RIGHT TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY

1. Whereas the power to tax is the power to destroy; Tax on all property, real and personal, except as income or on sale or transfer, above one-tenth of one percent per annum shall be prohibited.

2. The taking of property by eminent domain shall only be by just compensation for the purpose of the erection of public infrastructure.

3. Public property that is sold or otherwise converted to private use within 20 years shall first be offered to its original owner(s) or their heirs in substantially its original condition at its original price of acquisition.

4. Property that is seized for non-payment of taxes must be speedily sold at auction. Any amount above the tax owed and costs must be returned to the owner.

5. This article shall have no time limit on its ratification.


86 posted on 06/23/2005 1:35:11 PM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mware

Any short cuts to getting to my posts?


87 posted on 06/23/2005 1:35:48 PM PDT by MJDuncan1982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: mizmoutarde

Well, I'm sure the power company would run into a mysterious brick wall if they try to take the Kennedy property for wind power generation (which clearly is "public use"). Could be a very interesting situation.


89 posted on 06/23/2005 1:36:58 PM PDT by Lekker 1 ("Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"- Harry M. Warner, Warner Bros., 1927)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Silly...don't you know that the [economic development] needs of the many outweigh the [private property rights] needs of the few!?

Well, since Senators use Scottish law as precedent, and the Supreme court uses foreign laws and public opinion to justify their decisions, why not base the usurption of rights on Vulcan philosophy?

90 posted on 06/23/2005 1:37:02 PM PDT by tnlibertarian ("In my opinion, they have no rights, except a safe return to their homeland. - "Robert Vazquez")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1

Sad part? Even though both sides are against this, we know one party would have to have THEIR way instead of compromise....


91 posted on 06/23/2005 1:37:46 PM PDT by mosquitobite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mizmoutarde

They would have told the troops to open fire.


92 posted on 06/23/2005 1:38:02 PM PDT by DarthVader (Always ready to educate liberals by beating them profusely about the head with a Louisville Slugger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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.

It's a sickening decision.


93 posted on 06/23/2005 1:38:04 PM PDT by buckleyfan (WFB, save us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mizmoutarde
What do folks think that George Washington, Sam and John Adams, Tom Paine, etc, would have done if such a decision had been handed down to them in their day?

Tar and Feathers and a simple 13 looped rope would have been too kind to express their displeasure.

94 posted on 06/23/2005 1:38:40 PM PDT by Centurion2000 ("THE REDNECK PROBLEM" ..... we prefer the term, "Agro-Americans")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mware

I like it.


95 posted on 06/23/2005 1:38:47 PM PDT by Lekker 1 ("Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"- Harry M. Warner, Warner Bros., 1927)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #96 Removed by Moderator

To: MJDuncan1982
On your RIGHT (lol, sorry) you will see New Posts to you. It will be highlighted, press on it and it will get you to your posts and posts sent to you.
97 posted on 06/23/2005 1:39:14 PM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

Comment #98 Removed by Moderator

To: skip_intro

If there are no rights to private property, and the SC just took away your right to private propety, there a no rights at all. The right to private property is a core right upon which many other rigths are built. The Supreme Court just made the American people serfs of the state. Now we will see if the American people are serfs or free.


99 posted on 06/23/2005 1:41:06 PM PDT by jpsb (I already know I am a terrible speller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: mizmoutarde

Neil just had one of the poor b@st@ards who is being robbed of him home. He was offered 60K for a 10 room home on the waterfront.


100 posted on 06/23/2005 1:42:46 PM PDT by mware ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-324 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson