Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment?
| Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161606] |
Thu, 23 June 2005 19:10  |
 |
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
Source (CNN).
| Quote: |
High court OKs personal property seizures
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
|
Ok, so maybe not the entire amendment, but a rather important clause. Constitution.org
| Quote: |
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|
From the article:
| Quote: |
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
|
A kicker isn't it?
| Quote: |
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
|
So your home could be bulldozed to make room for a new strip mall or shopping center. Sure it'll create more jobs, but it's for the public good!
| Quote: |
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
|
Hmmm, public purpose? Sounds like private interest. So it looks like a company with more financial muscle can throw its weight around and push the little guy around. I would expect something from business, but the government? Of course, the dissidents saw this.
| Quote: |
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
|
Bullshit. Compensation? What can they get other than the market value of property, which is didly-squat compared to the value the owner sees?
| Quote: |
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
|
It may give more power to the states, but this is nevertheless an ominous precedent.
| Quote: |
[O'Connor] was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
|
And please, let's keep partisan politics out of this.
O'Connor states things rather nicely.
From SCOTUSblog:
| Quote: |
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public - in the process.
|
It frightens me to see something like this coming from the judicial. It looks like you only "own" something until the next perp with big pockets comes and decides he can use it better than you can.
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
[Updated on: Thu, 23 June 2005 19:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161607 is a reply to message #161606] |
Thu, 23 June 2005 19:41  |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Don't worry. Only poor people will lose their homes. It's ok.
Sarcasm aside, this is a rediculous piece of judicial legislation.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161615 is a reply to message #161606] |
Thu, 23 June 2005 22:55 |
|
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
However--this practice of eminent domain now has the backing of the Supreme Court.
And another thing--public use and private development. I could have sworn roads, streets, and the like constituted "public use." But now this has twisted "public use" into the "public good." Who's to define "public good"? Notice that public good is not used in the fifth amendment.
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
[Updated on: Thu, 23 June 2005 23:00] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161639 is a reply to message #161606] |
Fri, 24 June 2005 06:56 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I just realized that all the wilderness preserves in the U.S. were seized with eminent domain. But I still think the whole private contractor developer business is a little weird.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161658 is a reply to message #161606] |
Fri, 24 June 2005 08:49 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Thanks to the efforts of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, property rights in the United States are now dead.
Who's surprised?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
[Updated on: Fri, 24 June 2005 08:50] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161667 is a reply to message #161606] |
Fri, 24 June 2005 10:50 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Just one of the reasons why it's better to live in Canada than the U.S. [health care]
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161671 is a reply to message #161606] |
Fri, 24 June 2005 11:16 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Sorry, I can't agree that it's OK to bulldoze a house for a commercial interest. You want to build a highway, a road, a government building... do what you gotta do. But not for a commercial interest.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161677 is a reply to message #161658] |
Fri, 24 June 2005 11:57 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Hydra wrote on Fri, 24 June 2005 11:49 |
Thanks to the efforts of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, property rights in the United States are now dead.
Who's surprised?
|
I'm not surprised.. but your statement isn't exactly factual... The decision was made by 5 Justices, and only 3 are hard-line liberal voters... The other two, Souter and Kenedy were both appointed by Republican Presidents, and both typically vote Conservative to mildly moderate. I can only assume that Souter bought a vote here for something that he wants a favor on in the near future.
[Updated on: Fri, 24 June 2005 11:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161679 is a reply to message #161606] |
Fri, 24 June 2005 13:33 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Wow, I'm going to feel SO fucking secure when I finally get my own place.
Republican this, Democrat that...who gives a shit what party it is? This is just wrong on so many levels. The Supreme Court has clearly overstepped its authority; it is using its power to legislate from the bench, and in a way that is harming the American people. That's all there is to it.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161697 is a reply to message #161679] |
Fri, 24 June 2005 17:31 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
In this instance, I don't believe they are "legislating from the bench", I believe they completely failed in their primary job: Defending the interests of US citizens through interpretation of the US Constitution.
In quite a few cases they agree to take on, I firmly believe that they are overstepping their bounds by not declining and returning the authority to the States where it belongs. Even though they are the "Supreme" court, their only authority lies in defending the Constitution of the US; it is their job to decide when a citizens Constitutional rights are being violated and do something about it. When there is no Right in question, they are supposed to defer back to the State Supreme Court, end of story.
In this case, a Constitutional Right was definitely in question, and they failed in upholding that Right, this was Not a Right which should be decided by the state, the US Constitution specifically spells out the citizens Right in this scenario, the States should not have final say, which is exactly what their decision stated.
As of late, I've been completely dumbfounded in quite a few of their decisions. They're taking on cases which I believe they have no authority an refusing to take on ones which I believe they definitely do have authority. However, this one -- In my opinion, they should have taken on, and should have upheld the rights of the citizens in question. I'm baffled at why they would take it on, then defer to the state's authority.. If that was their intention, why didn't they just refuse to hear it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161722 is a reply to message #161700] |
Sat, 25 June 2005 00:04 |
|
YSLMuffins
Messages: 1144
Registered: February 2003
Location: Moved a long time ago (it...
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator - Mod Forum |
|
|
| Doitle wrote on Fri, 24 June 2005 20:47 |
....
|
Well it sounds like in your story the people would have welcomed the developers. But now the council members and such can do this without your consent. Who's to say this power won't be abused?
-YSLMuffins
The goddess of all (bread products)
See me online as yslcheeze
[Updated on: Sat, 25 June 2005 00:04] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161737 is a reply to message #161606] |
Sat, 25 June 2005 06:06 |
 |
prox
Messages: 580
Registered: August 2003
Location: NYC
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm not surprised.. but your statement isn't exactly factual... The decision was made by 5 Justices, and only 3 are hard-line liberal voters... The other two, Souter and Kenedy were both appointed by Republican Presidents, and both typically vote Conservative to mildly moderate. I can only assume that Souter bought a vote here for something that he wants a favor on in the near future.
|
Yeah, not to mention that David H. Souter was appointed by Republican hero Bush Senior himself...
http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?ic11sjerh0w
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Supreme Court repeals 5th amendment? [message #161768 is a reply to message #161606] |
Sat, 25 June 2005 10:55 |
|
prox
Messages: 580
Registered: August 2003
Location: NYC
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
We do welcome them... lol. We'll finally have a place to shop and our taxes will go down. The reason this won't go abused, is because as I said we don't have supervillains as mayor. Mayor Mike Smith, mayor of my town, will not spin around in his chair slowly and say: "It's time..." *Cue Dramatic Music* Storm troopers flood the streets. "EXIT YOUR HOMES AND GET ABOARD THE NEAREST CITIZEN RELOCATION SHUTTLE IMMEDIATELY. YOU MAY BRING ONE SUITCASE PER FAMILY." And then every house in the town is buldozed to create thousands of Jamba Juices for who? All the people are gone.
|
LMFAO 
http://artpad.art.com/gallery/?ic11sjerh0w
[Updated on: Sat, 25 June 2005 10:56] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 23 06:08:44 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01215 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
