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

Skip to comments.

The Limits of Property Rights
New York Times ^ | June 24, 2005

Posted on 06/24/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by ken21

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: HiTech RedNeck; Uncle Vlad

a couple of people above made the same observation about the nyt.

as for what to do? stand by the president when he nominates a replacement(s) to the u.s. supreme court. i think he'll put up conservatives. and this is why the democrats are so hot at the moment.


101 posted on 06/25/2005 7:49:37 AM PDT by ken21 (the u.s. supreme court just elected a republican president in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Addressed at that level then dispensed with at that level.


102 posted on 06/25/2005 7:59:25 AM PDT by samm1148
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ken21; thoughtomator
"The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government." - Joe Sobran

Got to get this meme established, thoughtomator!

103 posted on 06/25/2005 8:00:25 AM PDT by headsonpikes ("The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

Pretty much. We're on the road to serfdom..


104 posted on 06/25/2005 9:04:06 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

If enough furor, most states will slam a lid on this. But what to do about Uncle Sam?

Ugh. I don't even wanna think about it. But read the Preamble to the Constitution. I think its authors meant for it to be re-read and acted upon when/if the Constitution itself were to be so twisted as it is today.

Amazingly Applicable Trivia: It only took 92 years for the Gubmint to legalize the completely legal State seizure of any property. The Federal Government, in 1913, applied the 16th Amendment (which some, to this day, will swear was never properly ratified; but no matter...) to begin seizing property in the form of income. In 2005, the Legal work completed with the SCOTUS' nullification of Takings Clause stated in the 5th Amendment now enables government to seize real property with the flimsiest of excuses.

All they now need is a municipal official to round up the needed political support, and your property no longer belongs to you, for any purpose as long as it can be called "improvement". You don't have to violate any laws to be a target ... it's that simple. Just breathe. Work hard all your life. Save and acquire property. Or, God forbid, hold an inflammatory political opinion. Where's the offense here?

"America: Land of decree, home of the slave"

105 posted on 06/25/2005 9:23:13 AM PDT by Little Black Corvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Schwaeky

No, it's not. There is no justification while there is still remedy under law. Load up on law books.


106 posted on 06/25/2005 9:49:22 AM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
there's FReepers here that think this is no big deal... I think they're either in denial, or they enjoy p*ssing some of off...

There is a handful of posters here who've never met a statist power grab that didn't give them an orgasm. They come out on the side of expanded government power on every issue.

107 posted on 06/26/2005 8:55:36 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jla

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431095/posts


108 posted on 06/26/2005 12:58:15 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to steal your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ken21

ccccc


109 posted on 06/26/2005 1:04:11 PM PDT by bert ( "Market forces, not political majorities, will compel societies to reconfigure themselves in ways t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

I remember reading that the USSC has ALWAYS voted on the sides of the elites regardless of left or right.

The elites want to be able to take private property so the Judges give the elites what they want same as always.


110 posted on 06/26/2005 1:07:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

Kennedy basically said real estate ownership is a collective property right not an individual property right.

Perhaps we should put some NONlawyers on the USSC.


111 posted on 06/26/2005 1:10:25 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

aLL politics are local.

What developer is not not going to be able to buy off a local zoning or commission board?

How about playing iwth the definition of blight? Blight means not earning enough tax money.


112 posted on 06/26/2005 1:12:27 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

kennedy knows better, i think.

something turns these justices after they arrive on the court.


113 posted on 06/26/2005 1:13:29 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to steal your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ken21

Perhaps we should revisit the court packing concept and create a group of term limited justices that out number the lifers.


114 posted on 06/26/2005 1:15:12 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

you can try.

attempts to change the court haven't worked, fortunately. fdr wanted to expand it to 15 members to suit his purposes, and even with his clout, couldn't.


115 posted on 06/26/2005 1:17:30 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to steal your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ken21
If you can be taxed on something you own....
You don't own it.. you're renting it..
116 posted on 06/26/2005 1:39:06 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Black Corvette
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

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 offence 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.

From Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion,
 
The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the property, as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever. At the time of the founding, dictionaries primarily defined the noun “use” as “[t]he act of employing any thing to any purpose.” 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary ofthe English Language 2194 (4th ed. 1773) (hereinafter Johnson). The term “use,” moreover, “is from the Latin utor, which means ‘to use, make use of, avail one’s self of, employ, apply, enjoy, etc.” J. Lewis, Law of Eminent Domain §165, p. 224, n. 4 (1888) (hereinafter Lewis). When the government takes property and gives it to a private individual, and the public has no right to use the property, it strains language to say that the public is “employing” the property, regardless of the incidental benefits that might accrue to the public from the private use. The term “public use,” then, means that either the government or its citizens as a whole must actually “employ” the taken property. See id., at 223 (reviewing found-ing-era dictionaries).

Justice Thomas believes that words mean something. The majority on the court just changed the definition of "public use" to "any public purpose".

It is just like they long ago changed the freedom of speech (oral) and of the press (written) to include expressions which are neither oral or written. Burning the flag is now considered protected free speech. Is self-immolation far behind? And if so, what about the suicide bomber? Is that protected free speech?

The Constitution is not a living document, it is a written document. To uphold the Constitution is to retain the meaning of the written word.

117 posted on 06/26/2005 2:51:55 PM PDT by Qout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Americanexpat
I just see blood being shed over these actions before it is all over.

Damn straight, that, or a post expropriation visit to said stolen property to distribute a bit of PCE, DDT, lead powder, etc... on it.

118 posted on 06/26/2005 4:26:06 PM PDT by Axenolith (This space for rent...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bar-Face

The same crap happened with Shenandoah National Park too. Unfortunately, we haven't demonstrated a quick response to this by sticking up for our neighbors either...


119 posted on 06/26/2005 4:37:54 PM PDT by Axenolith (This space for rent...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

"But you see Big Government is ok as long as the Republicans are in control of it."

That is the dangerous thing here. The left has been demonized so much that the majority of the sheeple turn to the republican party. Now that the so called "right" has actually moved to the left, once again the American people lose. We need to take our party back.


120 posted on 06/26/2005 10:03:38 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (Saddam: $25k to suicide bombers = BAD --- Bush: 50 mil to terrorist scum = "GOOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 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