Posted on 06/23/2005 8:06:55 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
elected governments enact zoning laws and building codes. this SCOTUS issue is about eminent domain and the specific constitutional protection that applies to that. there is nothing in the constitution giving you the right to install substandard wiring in your home, government can regulate that, the same way they can regulate where porno theaters are built.
This is also the first day i've heard right- and left-wing radio commentators vehemently agreeing on an issue. At first I was surprised that the left would react to this - haven't they always believed that property belomngs to the government?
The key to energizing the public is that when you talk to the left about this issue, always use the magic W word - Wal-Mart. Today's decision means the left's most hated icon can build a store wherever they want to. We may be able to get the nation's first bipartisan lynching out of this.
I really don't need my ulcer to get any bigger.
Thanks ... and I'd like to apologize for wishing on that monkey's paw I found that people would see how far we've departed from the Constitution.
Oh please. The left is angry about this ruling not because private property is being taken but because of *who* that property is being taken from and given to. If this land were being given to some conservation group to protect a spotted owl or some cave bugs, they wouldn't blink an eye. And if it were being taken from some Big Evil Corporation, they'd be doing cartwheels in the street. They've been taking people's stuff and giving it to others for decades. Now suddenly they're shocked, shocked! that the government is taking someone's stuff, even though they've spent years begging the government to do so. "But nooooo, we don't want to give it to *those* people; we want to give it to some *other* people." Oh well, too late. As long as they have no respect for property rights, they have no principled leg to stand on with their complaints. All they object to is the End, not the Means.
BINGO! Well put and completely accurate.
She started this with the sodomy case in Texas and the affirmative action case dealing with the University of Michigan.
Must be a Commerce Clause thing. It's not "your" home anyway, since it's simply a rented communal asset.
Unfortunately, by the time the Feds come for your property, the taking of property will have become so common that no one will pay any attention.
its not granted to anyone, which means the legislative body can regulate it.
Looks like we just took way too many steps backwards into history.
The case presented does not deal with an attempt to prohibit the amalgamation of the races. The right which the ordinance annulled was the civil right of a white man to dispose of his property if he saw fit to do so to a person of color and of a colored person to make such disposition to a white person. It is urged that this proposed segregation will promote the public peace by preventing race conflicts. Desirable as this is, and important as is the preservation of the public peace, this aim cannot be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the federal Constitution. [245 U.S. 60, 82] It is said that such acquisitions by colored persons depreciate property owned in the neighborhood by white persons. But property may be acquired by undesirable white neighbors or put to disagreeable though lawful uses with like results. We think this attempt to prevent the alienation of the property in question to a person of color was not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state, and is in direct violation of the fundamental law enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution preventing state interference with property rights except by due process of law. That being the case, the ordinance cannot stand. Booth v. Illinois, 184 U.S. 425, 429 , 22 S. Sup. Ct. 425; Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606, 609 , 23 S. Sup. Ct. 168.
Here is the full opinion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=60
Don't count on him. He just wants to get along.
you libertarians are "out there", you want to turn opposition of this ruling today into some "you can do anything you want with your property" right. so if I want to turn my home into a nuclear waste repository, its OK?
take that approach, you will lose 99% of the people opposing this ruling today.
Now it is safe for the Home Depot to return.
No doubt there is a large segment of unintelligent people in America. The premise is that even if millions of people ignorantly surrender any particular right, understanding that it's our collective rights that fade, and desperately deserve preserving.
Irony or Justice?
I am so amazed at this decision I have no words. God bless.
True. America is too important to be given up on. As long as there is hope there is, well, hope. This nation cannot be let to fade.
I also have less problem with that than with the taking of our land to give to a corporation.
If you are going to capitalize Freepers, you should at least capitalize Americans.
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.