The Supreme Court has abolished the 5th

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The out of control courts have possibly surpassed the RvWade ruling in the manner of desecrating the Constitution.

Thursday, June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON — Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
Click to expand...

FoxNews



Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, 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.
 
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...
Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development
Click to expand...

There goes a HUGE hole in your laws. ;)
 
It's not a hole in our Constitution. It's a hole in the head of several liberal judges who have now created a hole in the law.
 
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...
They've always been able to do this. Do you think all those farmers willingly gave up their farmland to put the Interstate system in place?
 
They are doing that in Zimbawe aswell. What is the world to do with these banana republics.
 
PT said:
They've always been able to do this. Do you think all those farmers willingly gave up their farmland to put the Interstate system in place?
Click to expand...
I was gonna say aboriginals ,but I guess its the same thing. :p
 
one is left to ponder the idea

at what point would a right thinking populace
realize the government has clearly over stepped
it's originally intended role and either set about
making it right or go beyond distain and take overt
action
 
then again

I personally have seen areas of cities where run down old timey housing that was
situated on land by virtue of its location
could be far better utilized in a commercial enterprise


the catch is

if developers were forced to pay true market value
and\or negotiate with the individual owners either the attempt
at development would be thwarted or the cost would make the project on the whole unprofitable
 
perhaps we should thank the deity of our respective
choices that as Americans we enjoyed so many
rights and freedoms for so long

all good things come to an end

the party's over

last one to leave


turn out the lights

will ya?
 
Winky said:
one is left to ponder the idea

at what point would a right thinking populace
realize the government has clearly over stepped
it's originally intended role and either set about
making it right or go beyond distain and take overt
action
Click to expand...

1860. Welcome to my way of thinking, nice to have you here. Refreshments are served on the second Monday of each week.
 
PT said:
They've always been able to do this. Do you think all those farmers willingly gave up their farmland to put the Interstate system in place?
Click to expand...

That is for the public good. This is trading private property, using governemnt powers, to another private owner.
 
Trouble is, who's qualified to say what is for public good? Would a Wal-Mart in a low-income area be public good? Drawing people from other surrounding communities to the store and maybe it's gas stations along the way and it's restaurants? Increasing revenue, increasing the salary of employees, creating more jobs for the community? I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust politicians and private entities to make those decisions but ultimately, that's where it may lie.

I've heard horror stories about people's houses that were "bought" to be demolished for roads or public property and they get paid a pittance versus what the land is actually worth in the long run. What recourse do you have? Apparently, not much now.

This sucks.
 
Amazing how many people agree with me and don't know it. I guess the argument does hold water, just in certain contexts.

I'll shut up now, and just watch and smile. :lurk:
 
i don't get it, I understand if you are building a highway the gov't has the right to force you to sell the land (and the stories i heard is you are paid well for it)but to force a sale for another private enterprise.....WTF
 
greenfreak said:
Trouble is, who's qualified to say what is for public good?
Click to expand...

If it transfers from private ownership to another privater sector entity, it's not "public good". Librarys, highways, bridges are public use. Wal-Mart & the Ritz-Carlton aren't.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Amazing how many people agree with me and don't know it. I guess the argument does hold water, just in certain contexts.
Click to expand...

The seperation is. it's ain't 1860 & Gen Lee was not a omniscient deity.
 
After driving many of the WV backwoods this week, it's no wonder your side lost. The roads aren't big enough for tanks & artillery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top