Obviously the president has you very depressed.
May I suggest a hearty dose of hemlock?
Posted on 06/24/2006 3:45:58 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
WASHINGTON — President Bush declared Friday that the federal government can only seize private property for a public use such as a hospital or road.
The president signed an executive order in response to a Supreme Court decision granting local governments broad power to bulldoze people's homes to make way for private development.
It was the one-year anniversary of the controversial Supreme Court decision in a case involving New London, Conn., homeowners.
The majority opinion from the divided court limited homeowners rights, by saying that local governments could take private property for purely economic development-related projects because the motive was bringing more jobs and tax revenue to the city.
But the court also noted that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit, and many have done so, prohibiting so-called takings for shopping malls or other private projects.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
His followers are still committed and angry that Bush stole their inheritance from them. "Everything Bush" needs to fail so that the philosophy of isolationism and anti-Israelism can prevail. His followers are patient and waiting like vultures for any sign of death.
We saw them surface a bit on the illegal alien situation. They are the ones that manage to hijack threads about "burnt toast" and weather reports to be about illegals. The border issue is emblematic of the larger isolationism these wacko's want to see here. For them the border issue is a stepping stone toward a larger (myopic) vision.
Obviously the president has you very depressed.
May I suggest a hearty dose of hemlock?
Well, that's pretty much the argument the Indians have made about Manhattan. It is reasonable to say "no more." It is not reasonable to try to go back and return all land to its original owners. (1) They may not want it back, or (2) they may have been willing to sell at the time, but would now want the more valuable land returned to them.
Philosophically, I understand the point, but practically, it would be impossible. If people are waiting for that to happen, they will never be happy because it is logistically impossible.
Well said.
Stretch, the Old Geezer here: Now that I have read the comments, I wish to make my take known to "Ya'al" I was forced to sell ten acres several years ago for about $400,000. My argument was that I purchased the land to build my dream home on and to hold it for my future retirement income, when I got too old to care for it.
I feel that any eminent domain seizure of one's property for any purpose, that person who owned the property, should become a partial owner of any development on that property so as to recieve compensation that would have been his if he had held on to it. In other words, if Wal Mart took my ten acres, there should have been a clause in the contract that would make me receive a portion of future profits from WalMart. In other words, a part owner of that store or other business. Today, that ten acres they took from me would be worth $ two million. without walmart or another development on it. just raw land with my home on it.
VERY well said!
I think this is more politcal than effective. When was the last time the feds took land for private enterprise?
I'm glad he did. It makes sense but again, this has no effect on the local issues.
One of the links I provided details the states that immediately reacted to the Supreme Court decision. And I think we all agree, this is primarily a local and state issue.
While some castigate Bush, no matter what he does, on this issue, I appreciate the fact Bush doesn't try to dictate to cities and states, what their response should be.
Not even that. All it does is forbid the federal government (only) from seizing property for the profit of private parties, which it doesn't do anyway. This is another example of the cynical manipulation of his base that lead to Bush's saying he's for gun rights but doing nothing about them.
Thanks for the post and link.
Going there to read the replies....can't imagine why ANYONE would be unhappy with him for correcting the stupitidy of SCOTUS activists. Except that it's a bit too late to help the people affected in New London.
I agree, it's a good thing but doesn't really effect most of us.
They're apparently demanding a Constitutional amendment to abolish eminent domain.
True that this appears not to effect us but there are Fedeal funds available for just about anything. Many states have already put the kabosh on the Supreme Court ruling. This serves as an umbrella for all the states and/or notice for any Federal Funds which might be available for these "private gain" takings.
He can say all he WANTS about Kelo, but he CANNOT DO anything about it! What do you people think this country is, a dictatorship?? Total power over your lives to one man?? Is that what you want? Or is it that so many of you just have no clue how the government of our Republic is set up to work??
Reminds me of the wackjobs on the Katrina threads dissing the president for not sending in the National Guard despite the fact that that idiot Blanco didn't allow it at the time.
BOTH wishes, that the president take complete control of this country right down to the local level and the demand for troops to be sent to invade Louisiana are unconstitutional AND dangerous for reasons that should be obvious.
It's more than you hope. It's precedent to counter more Kelo vs. New Londons except on the federal level.
You all who say this means nothing: imaging Bill Clinton, of Waco fame, with the precedent of Kelo vs. New London in his chubby, greedy hands.
As for gun rights, exactly WHAT has the president done to take away your gun rights? Hubby's and my guns are still all here. Did Bush steal your guns? Maybe using eminent domain?
Some do...
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.