Skip to comments.
Eminent Domain: House unanimously passes bill that addresses 13-year-old Kelo decision
American Thinker ^
| 07/25/2018
| Rick Moran
Posted on 07/25/2018 8:05:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
To: SeekAndFind
Unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds.
To: SeekAndFind
But what will the Senate do?
To: DoodleDawg
What is unconstitutional, this bill or something else?
Eminent Domain is federal from the takings clause of the fifth amendment, but it is limited to takings for public use. Kelo perverted that by equating public "use" with public "good." That was the unconstitutional act.
-PJ
4
posted on
07/25/2018 8:14:13 AM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
To: DoodleDawg
Unconstitutional on 10th Amendment grounds.
Attach an amendment that removes jurisdiction from inferior courts.
The case will immediately be forced to SCOTUS, which will get a do-over on Kelo.
To: SeekAndFind
Face it mass media is anti personal rights except when it comes to infanticide.
7
posted on
07/25/2018 8:23:13 AM PDT
by
Retvet
(Retvet)
To: SeekAndFind
Kelo= David Souters masterpiece. Love me some evolving Republican SCOTUS appointees.
8
posted on
07/25/2018 8:24:44 AM PDT
by
j.havenfarm
( 1,000 Posts as of 8/11/17! Still not shutting up after all these years!)
To: Buckeye McFrog
The case will immediately be forced to SCOTUS, which will get a do-over on Kelo. In the original Kelo decision it was appealed directly to the Supreme Court anyway since Article III says that when the state is a party then the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The amendment shouldn't be needed.
No reason why a do-over should lead to a different ruling. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to define "public use". Therefore it's the state's power on 10th Amendment grounds.
To: SeekAndFind
About damn to time! WORST decision since Plessy v. Ferguson. AND,it was a liberal decision.
10
posted on
07/25/2018 8:26:44 AM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: SeekAndFind
An awful, awful decision that openly allows the government to take your rights away.
To: Political Junkie Too
Eminent Domain is federal from the takings clause of the fifth amendment, but it is limited to takings for public use. Kelo perverted that by equating public "use" with public "good." That was the unconstitutional act. Where is "public use" defined in the Constitution? If it isn't then defining it is a power reserved to the states per the 10th Amendment.
To: SeekAndFind
“It’s tough to understand the indifference”?
Seriously? The belief in a fundmental right to property stems from a belief in Natural (divine) Law. Oliver Wendell Holmes and his simpaticos, steeped in social darwinism and atheism, did a good job intentionally expunging those concepts from our educational institutions in general, the media, and public discourse in general. To most people, there is no “higher law” protecting “certain inalienable rights.” They believe that whatever rights we have are granted by the government according to “the felt necessities of the time.” And since liberals almost universally believe a strong central government with “the right people in charge” will usher in utopia, well... of course they don’t care if government tramples individual rights to property, free speech, religious expression, or self protection.
13
posted on
07/25/2018 8:35:34 AM PDT
by
mikeus_maximus
(The Truth does not require our agreement.)
To: Political Junkie Too
Another question I’ll ask is that after the Kelo decision over 30 states passed legislation restricting how eminent domain can be used. Would you rather the federal government was making that decision for them?
To: DoodleDawg
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to define "public use". Therefore it's the state's power on 10th Amendment grounds.
I don't disagree, but that's the tail on this wagging dog. The legislation stops federal funding for states that use eminent domain to seize private land for 'economic development.' Deciding where to spend federal money is clearly a Constitutional duty of the Congress. If they had prohibited states from using eminent domain for 'economic development' then they would have been unConstitutional, but all this legislation says is that they're not going to fund it.
Plus, they said that no federal seizures for economic development could be done - another case of Congress directing what the federal government should do and therefore Constitutional - so long as the underlying act is itself Constitutional.
The problem is that the federal government is so involved in every detail of our lives - including in funding lots of things that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize. The unConstitutional thing is funding any 'economic development' whether by the states, or by the federal government itself, unless that 'economic development' clearly fulfills a public need like a military base, where the 'economic development' that follows is secondary to the legitimate purpose of the government.
15
posted on
07/25/2018 8:43:32 AM PDT
by
Phlyer
To: Political Junkie Too
Eminent Domain is federal from the takings clause of the fifth amendment, but it is limited to takings for public use. Kelo perverted that by equating public "use" with public "good." That was the unconstitutional act.I want my language back!
Unchecked, Unlimited taxing power CAN NEVER BE "the Public Good..."
We need an additional law...
The legislature is forbidden to use ambiguous, deceptive, fraudulent and Felonious language in the title of any new Law.
e.g. The Affordable Care Act
16
posted on
07/25/2018 8:47:57 AM PDT
by
publius911
(Rule by Fiat-Obama's a Phone and a Pen)
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: SeekAndFind
Why so little media scrutiny? Because the liberal judges voted FOR it.
18
posted on
07/25/2018 9:00:05 AM PDT
by
Ge0ffrey
To: DoodleDawg
The new legislation does not affect the States that have forbid taking ala what happened in Kelo.
It punishes those that permit it by denying federal economic development money to the state for 2 years.
A second component of the legislation forbids the federal government from taking ala Kelo. This part of the legislation is necessary since no law a state passes could supercede the federal government if this part is not included.
19
posted on
07/25/2018 9:03:20 AM PDT
by
Lmo56
(If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
To: DoodleDawg
Wasn't public use one of those things that was understood, that is, use meant used. Used meant that the public needed the property for a public use such as a road or a building that couldn't be placed anywhere else.
Maybe we should look for the definition of the word "constitution" while we're at it? Maybe the Framers really meant their "daily constitutional?"
-PJ
20
posted on
07/25/2018 9:13:07 AM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson