Judge Souter - Eminent Doman law he passed gonna take his house!
 

Look at this. The Supreme court made that bullshirt ruling where they can take your land if they can show it can generate more revenue, well a developer is now filing to take one of the judges land and home, tear it down, to build a hotel and under the new ruling he has the legal right to do so. Can you say owned

heres the article... http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Perfect. That developer should get a statue.

Quoted from the article:
"Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner."

If that were the strict interpretation then someone could petition my local muni and say that if they let them have the property the increase in assesment value will bring in more tax dollars...blah blah blah you get the point.

I don't know what to make of that!

wow.

That is the point of the ruling. ;)

this is a constitutional issue where the progressives won.

I second that.

Are they taking reservations yet?

I'm not sure I agree with this, and not sure I agree with most of what is being concluded and assumed here. This is an interesting decision (by the local authority, by the way) because some will point at the local authority making the decision and call them "greedy," while others will conclude that the local authority was a pawn here, and the greedy party is the commercial interests. Sure, the local taxing authority stands to collect more tax revenues and sure, that was the basis for the eminent domain decision (there has to be a stated basis), but the real pressure behind this was likely not the comparatively modest tax revenue increase. It was the relatively breathtaking profits to be made. Pressure that Big Money places upon various organizations, including and especially local authorities, is intense to say the least. And coordinated. So, very likely the facts in this entire thick file are just the tip of the iceberg. So, I'm not sure this is a case of ultra-socialism. I suspect it is a case of ultra-capitalism. I think the developer was the big winner here, and the local authority was a pawn.

And again, many people are talking as if they believe this decision was made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It was not. This recent decision was a decision by that Court not to stand in the shoes of the local authority. Big difference. For example, Justice Souter may think this was a bad decision. As a consequence of this decision in one jurisdiction, he may be fearful that a similar decision could be made regarding his property, located in another jurisdiction I'd guess. And he may become very vigilant with regard to his local authority (local residents have actual, objective influence over their local authorities....in a democracy....which is why the SC could leave this perview to them). And his decision would have been in spite of his property holdings, rather than because of them. But perhaps he voted for the right to decide this stuff at the local level as opposed to handing it to a federal level. As I said in another thread, if the SC gets into the business of reviewing the decisions of local authorities, they'll need nine hundred justices, not nine.

Bull, they ruled it WASN'T unconstitutional.

Also, no conservative court in the country would have allowed this, so how can you say it's not a liberal decision?

You know damn well what this was about, and it sure as hell wasn't influenced by "evil big business developers" gimmie a break. Your party showed its ugly side on this one, just admit it.

Also, who do you guys think you're kidding with this "state and local rights" bull****? This has nothing to do with that. It violates my constitutional rights to take my land without public need for that actual land and that's what this was about.
This just really eats me, the delfecting. This IS big leftist government at work, pure and simple.

Big business? Give it up, they were in NO WAY involved in this case. Oh this irks me.

Did anyone read the website? It's a publicity stunt. :rolleyes:

I'm sure the Constitution is interpreted in as many ways as the Holy Bible.

so to say something is "unconstitutional" is pretty much meaningless.

Oh sweet sweet mother of goodness :eek: , my amazement at the ignorance of the above statement can only be properly expressed in a complex series of clicks and whistles. Make it stop.

to say that statement is ignorant is to believe that the Constitution is NOT interpreted differently by individuals to serve their own agenda.

"to say something is "unconstitutional" is pretty much meaningless"

I am speechless. No smilies, no other remarks, nothing....speechless.

Yes, the constitution can be interpreted with "spin".

That is a far cry from meaningless.

I'm with len all the way on this one.

It's hard to believe there are really US citizens on this BBS who actually support the local gov't power to seize my home and give it to the guy down the street. This is scary imo.

and if Bush does a SC nomination the "progressives" will fight him to no end.. naturally 'cause the "progressives" know how to fix the constitution.

Ron nailed it...if you own any real estate, you should be scared ****less over this one. I for one, hope the "publicity stunt" takes off, and the "honorable" Justice gets booted out on his kiester!

Supe, I disagree with this statement

"I'm not sure this is a case of ultra-socialism. I suspect it is a case of ultra-capitalism. "

I think an example of pure ultra-capitalism would be to keep raising the offer $ until both parties agree.

An ultra-socialism example would be the rich elite hiding behind the governmental machine that is portraying itself as a helping hand and equalizer for the common citizen.

You may be right in saying that this decision is an example of Modern Capitalism - but not Capitalism as defined by our forefathers.

From the US Constitution - anybody remember this old piece of papyrus?

Ammendment 5

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Taking private property from 1 entity and giving it to another
entity just to increase tax revenue hardly seems like public use. If the intent is to raise revenue, you would think the local gov's would find a constitutional method of doing so.

The SC really fuched up this decision.
If you want my property - make me an offer I can't pass up, or go find someplace else.

Bob Brinker on his "money talk" show: "The fifth amendment, at least that part of it, is gone." So, anybody care to guess which other of our bill of rights is next? After the Dan Rather fiasco...I think it should be the first...first.