Posted on 06/23/2005 12:12:48 PM PDT by truth49
Could state legislatures write emminent domain provisions into state constitutions, thus limiting it on the state level?
Didn't the Bush administration file a Friend Of The Court brief in this case?
Nope. SCOTUS' rulings are the final word.
ARTICLE 10. The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.
Remember this oldie but goodie?
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.
It is time for Bush to go to congress with a simple request that declares to the court from the other two branches of government, with regard to this ruling:
"go ahead, try to enforce it"
Either Congress & or the Executive branch could issue a 'finding' that public takings for private gain are against basic Constitutional principles that protect individual human rights.
They could urge/authorize that the Justice Dept make available public defenders to citizens facing such infringements by state or local authorities who misuse their power.
No.
No, a state can very well forbid itself from exercising the powers allowed it by the federal government through their own legislation. And eminent domain is exercised at the state and local level far more than it is done at the federal.
But this sort of thing gets more corrupt the farther you go down with the local level being the worst. So fat chance of that ever happening.
I can't speak for Justice Thomas, but I do acknowledge that it is the state that enforces the law and protects our rights. It's why we have a state. Nevertheless, IMO, the fact that the state is not the source of our rights is pretty crucial.
"Wondering what the local government must pay for your home, once it decides to condemn."
they can use your last tax assessment. The actual value is most likely much higher, pus, they do not need to pay you what the land is now worth based on the commerical interst in your peropty.
For instance, my taxable value is $799,000, but the real-estate value is $1.1 million. The land is worth $45,000, but, if I were to sell it Wal-Mart, they would easily pay $250,000 just for the land. Because the government is taking my property, I would most likely get $799,000 and not any higher even though the commercial interest is $205,000 higher than the current property Value.
Rights is a big question and as old as western civilization. Nothing is purely this or that. For example, there are natural rights, which are from the clan or the forest animals and generally suck. Then there are civil rights, which are better and derive from the first institution of the state--the family. Then human rights, which are definitely from the State and still pretty much speculative. It's quite a collection and hard to nail down.
Well, I think the framers' position was that we were born with our (natural) rights, endowed by the Creator. All of which were not enumerated for fear that someone might assume that the named ones were the only ones.
I do admit that by necessity that's somewhat vague, but I don't have too much trouble figuring out that it wasn't contemplated that the state could take one man's property and sell it to another in the name of the common good. I am pretty shocked about it.
So they don't have to pay market value? Now I'm shellshocked.
I don't like the idea of the State in any kind of business relationship, which ought to be the issue of the day, not that they can take land at all. There is a problem there, and some legal problems. It's a legal tightrope.
I also have issues with city planning when it involves commercial districts that people have to drive to, especially with some problems in the cost of gasoline starting to get real obvious.
Market value is what the government defines. If they use your tax assessment value, that is good enough. In fact, it is fair because taxes were paid on that value and not the real FMV.
"It's a legal tightrope.
"
Was. Was a tightrope.
No, it is the market that determines that. The Gov't must pay fair market value based on the market, which includes property appraisal by private property appraisers.
The planning issue is separate.
Has either party, or any politician made formal statements in response to the ruling today?
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.