States are moving to stop Supreme Court

Associated Press ^ | 19 July 2005 | Edcoil

[edcoil]

States Move to Blunt Effect of Supreme Court Eminent-Domain Ruling

By Maura Kelly Lannan Associated Press Writer Published: Jul 19, 2005

CHICAGO (AP) - Alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes and turning the property over to developers, lawmakers in at least half the states are rushing to blunt last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain.

In Texas and California, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments to bar government from taking private property for economic development. Politicians in Alabama, South Dakota and Virginia likewise hope to curtail government's ability to condemn land.

[edcoil]

Ever notice we spend most of our time now fighting our own government?

It is becomming more us vs them then ever.

[Tulane]

This article is a little off base, I doubt the author actually read the Supreme Court's decision...The opinion iteslf stated that if citizens didn't like a locality's excercise of power, simply vote for state legislators or local politicians that would curb its use...that is exactly what is happening here...in no way would I describe this phenomenon as a "blunt" of the Court's ruling.

[rogue yam]

This headline is total B.S. It is not the Supreme Court that is taking people's property. It is state and local governments that are doing so. The Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, has merely ruled that the Constitution does not forbid such actions by local entities.

[AbeKrieger]

We're not fighting the government. We're doing what the court said we must in this case. To defy their mindless ruling we must enact statutes at the state level.

[Recovering_Democrat]

They aren't fighting fast enough. I hope Bush uses his announcement tonight to emphasize the importance of an originalist in the context of this recent Socialistic Ruling by the Robed Masters on the Supreme Court.

[VRWCmember]

The Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, has merely ruled that the Constitution does not forbid such actions by local entities.

The Supreme Court ruled -- wrongly -- that the clearly worded "public use" allowance for taking of private property can be expanded by government to mean "private use by someone else if it provides a public benefit". Such an expansion of government power by fiat from five fools was an abrogation of all of our property rights by the Supreme Court. You are technically correct that the SCOTUS did not take anyone's property; however, they have trampled on all of our property rights and made our ownership of our own property subject to the whims of local government unless we get our legislatures to enact legal protection of our property rights that were supposed to be guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the first place.

[VRWCmember]

This headline is total B.S.

Yes, a better headline would have been "States Acting to Correct Supreme Court Error on Property Rights."

[DJtex]

I think that SCOTUS is saying that state-local govts. can work this one out. It doesn't set up a Constitutional right of property seizure. It just expands the "urban blight" definitions slightly to say that local governments can make their own definition of "public use" assuming that their State laws don't forbid it.

So I'm very happy that more and more states are moving in the direction of spelling out "public use." I still think it's an awful ruling.

[edcoil]

If original intent is the most important we are in trouble. no president would appoint a new judge to strike down his programs as unconstitutional/

Bush signed the biggest increase in the Fed gov in history since the New Deal, while we want these Old failed programs stopped, our children would what Bush's new ones that, will fail in their time as the old one's did in ours.

It whom they are speaking is his announcement, she was voted 99-1 in her last vote. Now Biden cannot say she is not a generally approved judge.

What that much government votes on anything it must be to protect itself - I am not sure you are going to be that happy.

[Noachian]

It is not the Supreme Court that is taking people's property. It is state and local governments that are doing so.

No. It's the judges on the Supreme Court who have opened this Pandora's box, and by doing so the states now have to remedy the situation on their own. Had the judges stuck to the original text instead of making their own law up as they go along this whole eminent domain issue would not be sweeping the country. In effect the SC is giving license to any business, that can bribe a city government, to take private property. That license was not the judges to give under our Constitution.

The Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, has merely ruled that the Constitution does not forbid such actions by local entities.

I can't believe you think this was a "right" decision. Anyone who cares to read the 5th Amendment, and can define the words "public use" knows this was an unconstitutional ruling, and the court should be held libel for it by the Congress. Judges are not demigods, and if they insist on judicial activism they should be made to answer for it.

[hdrabon]

The North Carolina real estate industry is TOO in the hands of the state's legal industry for the legal industry controlled legislature and attorney governor to EVER do ANYTHING substantive to "blunt" the decision. . . .