Skip to comments.U.S. top court backs Florida property owner in land-use case
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:42:45 AM PDT by Sopater
In a victory for advocates of private property rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that governments may owe compensation to property owners who are denied permits to develop their land.
Critics said the 5-4 decision, with the conservative justices comprising the majority, will make it more difficult and costly for governments to promote development or enact environmental changes designed to help the public generally.
The court sided with Coy Koontz, a Florida man who said limits imposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District on how he used his land were a "taking" subject to compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
You mean like the Founding Fathers? Like all Americans, whether they admit it or not?
It's like calling a medical breakthrough "a victory for advocates of health".
Now, if we could just get those thrown into prison for using their own land freed things might seem just a bit better.
Things will never be better in this nation abused by the ever looming bureaucracy that’s either filled with loonies or they are on a deliberate path to destroy America.
The buffoonish phony mystery man presently occupying the White Hut and his entire web of associates needs to be removed and as the Clinton duo were wont to say: “Sooner, rather than later.”
America has run out of time and patience as it’s not fun to watch while your nation is being bled dry by an enormous army of leeches.
It isn't just government busybodies who try and tell you what to do with your property. There are any number of private individuals and organizations that want to use the power of government to control what YOU do for THEIR benefit.
Congratulations, you've just made it on to yet another NSA list.
Bummer. The statue of limitions has probably expired.
What is with this USSC? Why are 4 so often opposed to our rights? What is their thinking or motivation? Rhetorical question: They’re heart-on-sleeve socialists.
I cringe whenever I see a 5-4 decisions on cases involving fundamental rights. May there be a day that judges are duly impeached and removed for blatant activism. Like Gingrich said, a few scalps (proverbially speaking) should put these judges in check.
The “takings” business is pretty fundamental. And it’s not a “penumbra”, it’s right there in black and white.
Sickening how the four liberals always, always, always vote in lockstep. They are not jurists, they are apparatchiks.
Simple, the liberal justices prefer to make their decisions according to an erroneous living Constitution, rather that what was written into law. Don't know how they come about to their conclusions, but it is mostly based on a "living" Constitution.
Don't really think they are evil, they just re-construct the Constitution through past rulings that have over time de-contructed the original intent, and give them new theories of what the Founding Fathers may have meant. It's there complex legaleese interpretation, where us conservatives see the US Constitution as absolute.
You and I can argue the original of a beer. I can say that Samuel Adams has a certain formula and that should remain supreme within its company. You can argue that no one has a such a formula that can't be broken by patent/copywrite laws. I's all a matter of interpretation. Unfortunately, the writers of the Constitution could not foresee every possible future conflict with their document.
When they wrote the highly abused General Welfare clause, and the lessor abused Commerce Clause, they couldn't envision modern politicians using such simple statements to guide us into tyranny. They did their best, but couldn't foresee the greed and power of future politicians, although they did argue it from time to time.