I realize this is an issue that generates a lot of passionate discussion, but please give this careful thought before answering . . .

Would it be inconsistent for a Supreme Court Justice to be pro-choice, yet still vote for striking down Roe vs. Wade because they concluded it was not adequately supported by the U.S. Constitution, amendments, etc.?

Justices on the Supreme Court are charged with INTERPRETING the laws based on the Constitution of the US. If a ruling was made because of a judge's belief about the action CAUSED by the law rather than his belief in it's Constitutional foundation, then that judge should be removed from office. It would be no different from a judge finding someone guilty despite all evidence pointing to innocence, just because he doesn't like the guy.

I can't see your question generating a lot of "passionate discussion". It's a simple question of "What is the job of a Supreme Court Justice?". Not at all about abortion or human rights, life or death, or anything else.

Justices on the Supreme Court are charged with INTERPRETING the laws based on the Constitution of the US. If a ruling was made because of a judge's belief about the action CAUSED by the law rather than his belief in it's Constitutional foundation, then that judge should be removed from office. It would be no different from a judge finding someone guilty despite all evidence pointing to innocence, just because he doesn't like the guy.

I can't see your question generating a lot of "passionate discussion". It's a simple question of "What is the job of a Supreme Court Justice?". Not at all about abortion or human rights, life or death, or anything else.

Hah, ha you just set off a powder keg.

I take the point of view that the bill of rights itemizes rights guarenteed under the constitution. The decision of Roe V wade made up a right not itemized in the Constitution.

From my point of view, aboration is about when civil rights begin and when civil rights end and when one may give up those civil rights and when the state may abridge those civil rights. When the discussion moves away from rights of the fetus or baby or child or adolescent or adult or elderly... Then the clarity becomes muddled in exchange for individual personal desires.

I realize this is an issue that generates a lot of passionate discussion, but please give this careful thought before answering . . .

Would it be inconsistent for a Supreme Court Justice to be pro-choice, yet still vote for striking down Roe vs. Wade because they concluded it was not adequately supported by the U.S. Constitution, amendments, etc.?

No, not inconsistent at all. The Supreme Court is supposed to determine the constitutionality of laws, regardless of personal preference.

Not that that's necessarily the way the real world operates, of course.

I take the point of view that the bill of rights itemizes rights guarenteed under the constitution. The decision of Roe V wade made up a right not itemized in the Constitution.


The ninth amendment to the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


This and the tenth amendment are, IMHO, the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Hah, ha you just set off a powder keg.

I take the point of view that the bill of rights itemizes rights guarenteed under the constitution. The decision of Roe V wade made up a right not itemized in the Constitution.

From my point of view, aboration is about when civil rights begin and when civil rights end and when one may give up those civil rights and when the state may abridge those civil rights. When the discussion moves away from rights of the fetus or baby or child or adolescent or adult or elderly... Then the clarity becomes muddled in exchange for individual personal desires.

That's just the point. The Bill of Rights was not an itemization of the rights guaranteed under the constitution. In fact, there was debate on whether it should be included at all, just because they were afraid people would take to be just that.

The Bill of Rights simply illustrates those rights which the Founders felt to be so paramount and important they needed specific statement. In order to try and ensure later generations would realize that the first eight amendments were not exclusive, they also added the Nineth and Tenth amendments.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Dammit Vestix, you beat me =P

I take the point of view that the bill of rights itemizes rights guarenteed under the constitution. The decision of Roe V wade made up a right not itemized in the Constitution.If your view was correct, we'd be in a world of hurt. As it is, we have the ability to live our lives freely using laws as societal guidelines. Your interpretation would require legislation of every move we make, from the moment we awoke in the morning to the moment we awoke again the next day.

The Constitution was not written to grant individuals their rights. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to limit GOVERNMENT as it relates to our individual rights. ie, the people have all rights not specifically prohibited in the Constitution and/or laws that are written and applied within the bounds set forth for government within the Constitution.

What kind of a man is this Roberts guy? Interesting article from Howard Kurtz on some of his rather sarcastic memos that are surfacing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
Roberts is quite familiar with bureaucratic dodges and the art of Washington insincerity, the documents suggest..

As the New York Times noted: "Responding to a letter from the American Jewish Committee in 1981, he asked a supervisor, 'Is this draft response O.K. - i.e., does it succeed in saying nothing at all?'"

And...

As The Washington Post pointed out, he advised then-AG William French Smith in 1982 on how to tell Coretta Scott King that Justice was axing a $250K grant for what he called the "very poorly run" MLK Center in Atlanta. JR's advice: Just tell Mrs. King " 'there is simply no money available for additional funding,' and 'indicate support for the activities of the King Center, and even pleasure that the Justice Department was able to be of assistance in advancing' its goals."

A real pleasure, right.

And when Olson said his strategy would "be perceived as a courageous and highly principled position, especially in the press," Roberts underlined the words "especially in the press" and wrote: "Real courage would be to read the Constitution as it should be read and not kowtow to the Tribes, Lewises and Brinks!" He meant Lawrence Tribe, ABA chief David Brink and NYT columnist Anthony Lewis.

If your view was correct, we'd be in a world of hurt. As it is, we have the ability to live our lives freely using laws as societal guidelines. Your interpretation would require legislation of every move we make, from the moment we awoke in the morning to the moment we awoke again the next day.

The Constitution was not written to grant individuals their rights. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to limit GOVERNMENT as it relates to our individual rights. ie, the people have all rights not specifically prohibited in the Constitution and/or laws that are written and applied within the bounds set forth for government within the Constitution.

Actually, the Bill of rights was written to limit the FEDERAL governement. My interpertation has NOTHING to do with the federal government. I am asserting that the federal government has overstepped its powers in the Roe V Wade ruling. I am also asserting that this issue is a conflict of rights between the mother and fetus. LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In addition, the rights reserved for the Federal government are separated from the Bill of rights. The rights reserved to the STATES and the people have been trampled by the Roe V wade decision by the Supreme Court hearing the case. By hearing the case, the Supreme Court asserted power far beyond what the Constution grants. They took power from the States as Aidon cleverly sited above.

This Supreme Court ruling forces an exact interpertation of "Federal law"/"Constutional law" rather than a Federal law being the most permisive with more restrictive State laws. This is going to be true with the Emient Domain decision as well. State laws will be overturned RESTRICTING local governments from TAKING peoples' land.

TAKING is defined as paying below a fair value for a property. A fair value has two parts. The actual value plus sentimental value. Why is a Babe Ruth rookie card so valuable? A reproduction is just as good and may look the same. The fair value for property has two parts and changing the definition of the phrase PUBLIC USE aggravates this problem.

In summary, the Constution was set up to allocate power on the FEDERAL level and all other power was distributed to the states. If the Supreme Court hears a case for which it has no right to hear the case(see Aidon's Constitutional reference) then this is a power grab by one branch of the Federal Government presented to the public as a victory for individual rights. What is missed is the overstepping of States rights by one branch of the Federal government.

"
Nothing in the Court's opinion indicates that Texas might not constitutionally apply its proscription of abortion as written to a woman in that stage of pregnancy. Nonetheless, the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied." Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885). See also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
"

Actually, the Bill of rights was written to limit the FEDERAL governement. My interpertation has NOTHING to do with the federal government. I am asserting that the federal government has overstepped its powers in the Roe V Wade ruling. I am also asserting that this issue is a conflict of rights between the mother and fetus. LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The bill of Rights was written to limit ALL government. No state can infringe upon the rights of the people, any more than can the Federal Government.

In addition, the rights reserved for the Federal government are separated from the Bill of rights. The rights reserved to the STATES and the people have been trampled by the Roe V wade decision by the Supreme Court hearing the case.

How can the rights of the people have been trampled by Roe v Wade? The decision says that people have the right to exist without undue interference in their personal lives and decisions by the government, be it local, state, or federal. The same reasons which give us legal protections such as the right to have an attorney present at police interrogation (Escobedo) and subsequently Miranda rights. This obfuscation of truth by those who would force their moral beliefs upon all others is particularly insidious.

By hearing the case, the Supreme Court asserted power far beyond what the Constution grants. They took power from the States as Aidon cleverly sited above.

They took power from the States, yes. And returned it to the People. The States do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of the People, regardless of whether those rights have been specifically enumerated or not.

This Supreme Court ruling forces an exact interpertation of "Federal law"/"Constutional law" rather than a Federal law being the most permisive with more restrictive State laws. This is going to be true with the Emient Domain decision as well. State laws will be overturned RESTRICTING local governments from TAKING peoples' land.

You are incorrect. State laws restricting local governments will not be overturned . That decision did not say the State must allow, but rather that a State could allow. And any attempt to compare that with Roe v Wade shows a particular misunderstanding of the concepts. Roe v Wade was a law which prohibitted the Government from infringing upon the rights of the People.


In summary, the Constution was set up to allocate power on the FEDERAL level and all other power was distributed to the states. If the Supreme Court hears a case for which it has no right to hear the case(see Aidon's Constitutional reference) then this is a power grab by one branch of the Federal Government presented to the public as a victory for individual rights. What is missed is the overstepping of States rights by one branch of the Federal government.

You, and your ilk, frequently love to forget that there is a third aspect of the Constitution. The rights of the individual, which trump the powers of the Federal and State Governments. It is in the power of the Supreme Court to adjudicate such matters for, indeed, it is the last bastion of the People against tyrranical Governance, short of violence.

You, and your ilk, frequently love to forget that there is a third aspect of the Constitution. The rights of the individual, which trump the powers of the Federal and State Governments. It is in the power of the Supreme Court to adjudicate such matters for, indeed, it is the last bastion of the People against tyrranical Governance, short of violence.

The Supreme Court is an unelected Tyranny.

The Supreme Court is an unelected Tyranny.

I guess you could say that about the constitution too. I mean, I didn't vote for it. At least you get to vote for the guy that's gonna put the clowns on the bench.

You, and your ilk, frequently love to forget that there is a third aspect of the Constitution. The rights of the individual, which trump the powers of the Federal and State Governments. It is in the power of the Supreme Court to adjudicate such matters for, indeed, it is the last bastion of the People against tyrranical Governance, short of violence.

Were you not just recently strongly and adamently defending the decision by the Supreme Court to broaden the power of eminent domain by local goverment's to take away an individuals property?

That sounds tyrranical to me and inconsistent (kinda ironic under the circumstances) on your part Aidon.

The eminent domian powers broaden the rights of corporations and lawyers, which seem to trump even the rights of the individual. Well maybe ;).

Were you not just recently strongly and adamently defending the decision by the Supreme Court to broaden the power of eminent domain by local goverment's to take away an individuals property?

That sounds tyrranical to me and inconsistent (kinda ironic under the circumstances) on your part Aidon.

It isn't inconsistant. They don't take away your property. The State doesn't have the right to come in and boot you to street at whim without recompense. It does, and has since the inception of this country, have the right to say "We need your land for X reason, here is more money than you'd receive if you were to sell your house on the open market. Thank you."

The Supreme Court is an unelected Tyranny.

It only seems to be a tyrrany to those who feel it is their right to impose their moral perogatives upon everyone else. Those who would have black riding the back of the bus. Those who would have prayer to Jesus begin every school day across the nation. Those who would have the audactiy to tell a woman "You must bear a child because my God says its right". Those would have the Government outlaw our means of defending ourselves from it.

The Supreme Court is an unelected Tyranny.

Hrm, I seem to recall the supreme court is composed of people who got their jobs by being nominated by an elected president and approved by an elected congress. That means that ultimately, who we elect governs who sits on the Supreme Court. That doesn't sound terribly tyranical to me.

It isn't inconsistant. They don't take away your property. The State doesn't have the right to come in and boot you to street at whim without recompense. It does, and has since the inception of this country, have the right to say "We need your land for X reason, here is more money than you'd receive if you were to sell your house on the open market. Thank you."

First off your claim that people are given more than fair market value for thier land when it is taken away from them thru eminent domain is a complete load of crap.

Which is beside the point anyways since people being recompensed for thier loss of property was never the issue here. The fact that they are being forced to sell is.

You see no difference in the Supreme Court expanding the power of eminent domain beyond what was intended by the Constitution because you seem to think that it will be a panacea for urban renewal by benevolent local goverments.

Guess the ends justify the means in your mind, sad to say it is not even how this new power will be used.

Again, how is the Supreme Court protecting the rights of the individual in this case against a goverment action?

In most cases going to the supreme court there will be a conflict of rights and the judges will have to choose either the lesser of two evils. In abortion cases there are the rights of the child and the parents to be balanced. In the eminent domain case there are the rights of the individual and the rights of the community of individuals.

If you were to just say that the rights of the individual always prevailed then no modern homes would ever get built as they typically need utilities provided by public use of private property. Some common sense needs to be applied, although everyone can disagree what common sense actually is.

Please understand I had no real issues with the previous scope of eminent domain.

My issue is with the expansion of the scope recently imposed by the Supreme Court that exceeds in my opinion what is allowed in the US Constitution, amendments, etc.

My issue is with the expansion of the scope recently imposed by the Supreme Court that exceeds in my opinion what is allowed in the US Constitution, amendments, etc.

What particular parts of the Constitution are you referring to?

You see no difference in the Supreme Court expanding the power of eminent domain beyond what was intended by the Constitution because you seem to think that it will be a panacea for urban renewal by benevolent local goverments.I don't agree with the new interpretation of "public use" in ED, but Aidon's beliefs about it are simply a strict interpretation of the 5th amendment. The Supreme Court didn't expand the Constitution's "stance" on ED, but they did expanded the commonly perceived definition of "public use". ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Anyway... woeden, you have some STRANGE interpretations and beliefs about our Constitution. Did you skip class the day it was being studied? Rest assured that those who drafted and signed the Constitution would have NEVER written in the Supreme Court to be an "unelected tyranny". But they are not elected directly by the people for a reason.

Anyway... woeden, you have some STRANGE interpretations and beliefs about our Constitution. Did you skip class the day it was being studied? Rest assured that those who drafted and signed the Constitution would have NEVER written in the Supreme Court to be an "unelected tyranny". But they are not elected directly by the people for a reason.

By your admission, the Supreme court is unelected. One person's right is another person's oppression.

Main Entry: tyr·an·ny
Pronunciation: 'tir-&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man -- Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'pre-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

Would you rather elect every single official from the federal government down to the local government, instead of allowing elected officials to appoint some of them?

I'm of the opinion that if the general populace was allowed to vote on the justices of the SC, Whopner would be up there by now. Maybe Judy too.

LOL! I can just see Judge Judy on the SC.

In most cases going to the supreme court there will be a conflict of rights and the judges will have to choose either the lesser of two evils. In abortion cases there are the rights of the child and the parents to be balanced. In the eminent domain case there are the rights of the individual and the rights of the community of individuals.

If you were to just say that the rights of the individual always prevailed then no modern homes would ever get built as they typically need utilities provided by public use of private property. Some common sense needs to be applied, although everyone can disagree what common sense actually is.

I agree with your point of view. As I just posted, the right of one is the oppresion of another. My angst involves changing this balance of rights without a change to the Constitution. The more involved the Federal government becomes, the more restricted the states and individual rights become. Consent requires a vote and increased Federal power without consent is my definition of tyranny.

Would you rather elect every single official from the federal government down to the local government, instead of allowing elected officials to appoint some of them?

My issue is with changes in the definition of words or the ever increasing reach of the federal government. Major changes in the interpertation of the law is, in my opinion, a form of tyranny.

The answer? I am not sure. What comes around, goes around. If the political pendulum swings too far one way, you can expect that pendulum to swing back the other direction ... which is my concern.

If the Supreme Court can change the definition of words in one case, then all words become subject to revision. There is a mechanism to make changes in the Constitution and that mechanism does not involve change in the defintion of words.

First off your claim that people are given more than fair market value for thier land when it is taken away from them thru eminent domain is a complete load of crap.

Its not a load of crap. But you'll keep saying it is, like a good little Republican.

Which is beside the point anyways since people being recompensed for thier loss of property was never the issue here. The fact that they are being forced to sell is.

You have a net loss of zero. NOTHING! Infact, most people end up with more money than if they had tried to sell it themselves. The Constitution clearly empowers Emminant Domain. Stop with your misrepresentations.

You see no difference in the Supreme Court expanding the power of eminent domain beyond what was intended by the Constitution because you seem to think that it will be a panacea for urban renewal by benevolent local goverments.

Guess the ends justify the means in your mind, sad to say it is not even how this new power will be used.

Have you even read the decision? I'm willing to bet you haven't. It was a good decision which allowed a town to save itself after loosing a military base.

Again, how is the Supreme Court protecting the rights of the individual in this case against a goverment action?

Let me put is in simple one syllable words: THERE IS NO LOSS OF RIGHTS!

Noone comes and takes anything from you. You are forced to trade your property for money. You loose nothing. The Constitution specifically permits Emminant Domain. We've used it for everything from electricity to railroads since the inception of the US.

My issue is with changes in the definition of words or the ever increasing reach of the federal government. Major changes in the interpertation of the law is, in my opinion, a form of tyranny.

The answer? I am not sure. What comes around, goes around. If the political pendulum swings too far one way, you can expect that pendulum to swing back the other direction ... which is my concern.

If the Supreme Court can change the definition of words in one case, then all words become subject to revision. There is a mechanism to make changes in the Constitution and that mechanism does not involve change in the defintion of words.

The Constitution is a Document which can, and must, evolve from the straight black and white. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant men, but they were not prescient. The simple changing of our language, over the course of the centuries, dictates that we will have to interpret what was indended by the Constititution. It is further compounded by the florid (by todays standards) language in which it was composed, and the lack of definitions (i.e. People vs State vs Government or Public Use).

Further, just because you think something in the Constitution means what you want it to mean, is not indicative that the Supreme Court changed any definitions in their rulings. Its more likely that it was you who were mistaken in your definition.

If the constitution was totally inviolable and rigidly enforced then that itself would be a tyranny, imposed by piece of paper. As time passed it would inevitably lead to disaster as the world changed but the piece of paper didn't. Someone needs to interpret the constitution for modern needs and the Supreme Court is as good a method as any other.

If you're worried about the ever expanding reach of government then vote for someone who'll reign it back. That's your defence against tyranny. You could even stand for office yourself and get it changed. If you feel your vote is worthless and that you can't stand for office then you've got bigger problems to worry about than the judges.

By your admission, the Supreme court is unelected. Not by MY admission. By the Constitution of the United States. And you have the same option as the rest of us... You can choose your country of residence and change your citizenship. If you don't believe in the US Constitution then you can either leave, work to institute a NEW US Constitution, or stay here and do nothing but complain about it.

If the Supreme Court can change the definition of words in one case, then all words become subject to revision. There is a mechanism to make changes in the Constitution and that mechanism does not involve change in the defintion of words.Well, you see, the SC didn't CHANGE the definition of any word. Or perhaps you can explain which of the two words in "public use" they changed? They were charged with clarifying an ambiguity, and they did. BUT, as a member of the *elite* voting public you have as much power to change this as anyone else. Many communities jumped up limit their own powers regarding eminent domain as soon as they saw the public outcry to the Supreme Court's ruling. If yours hasn't and you feel that it is an injustice as currently set forth, then by all means, let your elected officials know. In fact, get your friends to tell them too.

Its not a load of crap. But you'll keep saying it is, like a good little Republican.

FYI - I am not a Republican.

There's a party farther right than the Republicans?

There's a party farther right than the Republicans?

I do not happen to belong to any polical party.

And I think your characterization of me as a "filthy ultra-conservative" is off base and unfair.

Keep in mind you do not even know my stance on most issues or what importance I give to them.

I do not happen to belong to any polical party.
Good policy. Everyone I know who belongs to a political party eventually finds themselves in the position of defending some particularly stupid and indefensible policy their party supports.

And I think your characterization of me as a "filthy ultra-conservative" is off base and unfair.
Would "clean ultra-conservative" be a better characterization? :)

When the discussion moves away from rights of the fetus or baby or child or adolescent or adult or elderly... Then the clarity becomes muddled in exchange for individual personal desires.

You are doing a good job of muddling things with that statement.

I see no clarity in comparing things(people) which are completely different from one another.

Fetusii(fetuses) have no rights. They are not born yet.

You will have to show me first where they obtained them, before your statement makes any sense.

Posted by Pan,...As the New York Times noted: "Responding to a letter from the American Jewish Committee in 1981, he asked a supervisor, 'Is this draft response O.K. - i.e., does it succeed in saying nothing at all?'"


1981?, that is 25 years ago.

Roberts would have been what, 25.

And that really is a real issue. Even at 50, does this guy have the experience to do the job.

Not to mention, longevity, this guy is going to be a judge for another 30 years or so. That is friggen insane.

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



seems very clear to me. means if my land were needed for public (ie public owned" use, then they could take it.--doesnt say a thing about other private interest) I should not lose a house or farm that has been in my family for 5 generations so someone can build a private business or hunting lodge.

My father has a ranch in Nebraska where he raises angus. I would like that ranch to go to my child, then to my childs children and then thier children etc. But almost all the land around there is being bought up as hunting reserves---catering to people coming in from the west and east coast to hunt turkey and deer. These people pay 500 bucks a turkey and 2000 bucks a deer. So if someone wants to take my dads ranch (because for the good of the community he could bring in more money by having a hunting lodge) should he be able to? Is that we have come to? anything for the mighty buck? all your dreams and memories sold for the mighty buck?

If it was such a good deal they were offering, dont you think the people would sell anyway?? apparently the money being offered is not enough to some people. some old people may have spent thier entire life in one house and not be comfortable anywhere else.

Nah that ruling was nothing but a stripping of the ordinary peoples rights----democrats should be ashamed. How can they call themself the people party when they so obviously bowed to big business there? Guess they needed some cash infusion from big business in the form of election donations.

Nah that ruling was nothing but a stripping of the ordinary peoples rights----democrats should be ashamed. How can they call themself the people party when they so obviously bowed to big business there? Guess they needed some cash infusion from big business in the form of election donations.
Why are you blaming this on the democrats? It's not like Breyer and Ginsburg control the Supreme Court. In any case, from what I've seen, everyone seems to be dislike this ruling (except Aidon).

seems very clear to me. means if my land were needed for public (ie public owned" use, then they could take it.--doesnt say a thing about other private interest)

The wording was public use, not public owned. Private entities can already use emminent domain in the US.

I should not lose a house or farm that has been in my family for 5 generations so someone can build a private business or hunting lodge.

If your house or farm needs to go in order to fulfill the development plan the city emplaced in order to revitalize the town after its major employer up and left...I'm sorry but you'll have to start a new generational home.

My father has a ranch in Nebraska where he raises angus. I would like that ranch to go to my child, then to my childs children and then thier children etc. But almost all the land around there is being bought up as hunting reserves---catering to people coming in from the west and east coast to hunt turkey and deer. These people pay 500 bucks a turkey and 2000 bucks a deer. So if someone wants to take my dads ranch (because for the good of the community he could bring in more money by having a hunting lodge) should he be able to?

If the community has sat down, decided they needed to do something to revitalize a dying community and make the sort of extensive planning, as in the instance case, yes.

Is that we have come to? anything for the mighty buck? all your dreams and memories sold for the mighty buck?

What about the dreams and memories of those people who found themselves out of work when the military base left and finally had hope again when their town did the right thing and found another major employer to come to their city? Those people should be stuck because a few people didn't want to sell their house?

If it was such a good deal they were offering, dont you think the people would sell anyway?? apparently the money being offered is not enough to some people. some old people may have spent thier entire life in one house and not be comfortable anywhere else.

Emminant Domain is a last resort measure. Evidently enough people thought it was a plenty good deal and sold their land...except a few folks who would doom their entire city because they did not want to move.

Nah that ruling was nothing but a stripping of the ordinary peoples rights----democrats should be ashamed. How can they call themself the people party when they so obviously bowed to big business there?

...you do realize the Democratic party had zero say in the decision handed down by the Supreme Court, yes?

Guess they needed some cash infusion from big business in the form of election donations.

Guess they needed to keep their town from dying.

Aidon, you are truly the master of rationalization . . .

/bows

Guess they needed to keep their town from dying.
The philosophy that it's okay to sacrifice an individual for the good of the masses seems un-American to me. Whether you agree or disagree with this particular decision, you have to admit that one of the core philosophies of the founding fathers was to protect individual rights.

Possession of property and to meet the needs of the local authorities seems more reminiscent of feudal baronies or collectivism. Perhaps hypercapitalism will have similar results. Substituting financial compensation for quality of life makes it better though since money can buy you happiness!

The philosophy that it's okay to sacrifice an individual for the good of the masses seems un-American to me. Whether you agree or disagree with this particular decision, you have to admit that one of the core philosophies of the founding fathers was to protect individual rights.


Except that the founding fathers specifically allowed for the state to take land with just compensation.

Except that the founding fathers specifically allowed for the state to take land with just compensation.

Notice how Aidon strategically omits the word "public use", because that is the core of what the Supreme Court recently expanded.

New Haven, CT forced the sale of land so that they could turn it over to private developers - how is that a public use?

Whether or not the compensation is just is not the issue here - that issue is the same regardless of the scope of eminent domain being applied.

Except that the founding fathers specifically allowed for the state to take land with just compensation.
How do you think they would feel about this ruling (if they weren't dead, that is)?

Notice how Aidon strategically omits the word "public use", because that is the core of what the Supreme Court recently expanded.

Sunglo, I have great enough faith in the intellect of the Grovers who frequent these threads as to assume they are aware, already, of what the amendment says.

New Haven, CT forced the sale of land so that they could turn it over to private developers - how is that a public use?

Its public use because it was part of a massive re-development plan the city had worked on to bring a new employer to the city.

Kelo et al v City of New London et al.

***
Held: The city's proposed disposition of petitioners' property qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6-20.
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g. Midkiff. 467 U.S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land-at least not in its entirety-to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the...public." Id. at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley 164 U.S. 112, 158-164. Without exception the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting it longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. pp. 6-13

***

There. I typed part of the decision out for you and everything, since the folks railing against this decision seem loathe to actually read it. You should take the time to go read of the rest of it, as it gives more detailed accounting of the situation which played a part in the decision.

Except that the founding fathers specifically allowed for the state to take land with just compensation.

Ya, but I doubt ANY of them had on their minds that it should be taken because government could generate more TAXES from it that way.


You honestly think that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, et al., would approve of that ruling?

Men who just fought a war because they did not want to pay taxes.

You might think that legal paragraph justifies the decision Aidon but to me it clarifies exactly where it's going wrong. It admits that it is ever broadening the interpretation of public use beyond a literal interpretataion. It admits that it is conferring a large private benefit on a private party (the developers) because someone has a nice plan for people's homes to be condemned. The reasons given are not persuasive. The people who don't like the ruling will still disagree and having it written in nice legal terms doesn't change it one bit.

Ya, but I doubt ANY of them had on their minds that it should be taken because government could generate more TAXES from it that way.


You honestly think that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, et al., would approve of that ruling?

Men who just fought a war because they did not want to pay taxes.

The reasons wasn't simply to generate more taxes. It was to generate more jobs.

You might think that legal paragraph justifies the decision Aidon but to me it clarifies exactly where it's going wrong. It admits that it is ever broadening the interpretation of public use beyond a literal interpretataion. It admits that it is conferring a large private benefit on a private party (the developers) because someone has a nice plan for people's homes to be condemned. The reasons given are not persuasive. The people who don't like the ruling will still disagree and having it written in nice legal terms doesn't change it one bit.

Actually it says that the Court hasn't interpreted Public Use literally for some time now. It says you have to have a plan of greater magnitude than just the specific property to be condemned and that you can't condemn land just so you can give it to an specific other entity.

In that case now you agree that the Supreme court is changing the meaning of words and that it is beneficial to modern America for it to do so? :)

In that case now you agree that the Supreme court is changing the meaning of words and that it is beneficial to modern America for it to do so? :)

I'm saying that Public Use hasn't been defined strictly for the use by the public as a whole in a century and a half.

The Supreme Court didn't change the meaning. The Public doesn't own the land your powerlines are in or on. Nor does it own the land your phone lines are in or on. The Public doesn't own the land the railroads are on. Three very identifiable and historic examples.

I have to say, I wasn't a fan of the court's ruling when it was handed down, but I never doubted it's Constitutionality. One thing that we ALL have to remember here is that the primary user of the ED clause is our more LOCAL governments. I know that most everyone has a sense of hoplessness when the Federal government is doled out more power or a broader definition of powers because there is little we CAN do to counter the political machine it has become. But as I stated in an earlier post, many local governments jumped to limit THEIR OWN powers as they relate to ED based solely on the public outcry from the SC ruling.

Local governments are more pliable to the general public's wants, needs and desires. A public grass roots organization can have a tremendous effect on local elected officials. The SC ruling doesn't mean that we are going to see the nationalization of private property. But it does mean that every landowner needs to watch what goes on around him and stay involved in what affects him. For those who sit idly by letting life happen to them rather than living life for themselves, the ED ruling is definitely a blow to them. It would be nice if we could remain passive and let everyone else take care of things for us, but I don't think that is the kind of nation our founding fathers envisioned when they drafted the Constitution in the first place.

From Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion . . .



Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).


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. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "That alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

There. I typed part of the decision out for you and everything, since the folks railing against this decision seem loathe to actually read it. You should take the time to go read of the rest of it, as it gives more detailed accounting of the situation which played a part in the decision.

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

Absolutely!

There is no thundering applause as our friendly Lucas cajoles us.

It squeaks out, freedom by freedom. And once lost, rarely are able to be returned.

Hell, when I was a kid, we routinely built forts and had dirt clod fights. Now it is a felony .

OMG, I even rode a big wheel without a helmet, and sat in the front seat of the car.

If I did now with my children, if I allowed them to do the things that I did as a kid, and every kid I knew...I would be thrown into prison for child neglect or endangerment.

And I disagree with Justice O'Conner's dissent. We let the cat out of the bag with regard to transferring land from private to private over a century ago. With good reason. There are times when a single person cannot be permitted to stand in the way of tangible improvements to a community.

Towns in America are dying...as they die, the worth of the property owned within those towns becomes near to worthless. Should every person in New London have been forced to have their property effectively ruined, because of a handful? Where is the justice in that?

property value

not property

Nothing happens to the property.

I wish the supreme court could be used to prop up, actually increase, the price of my product and services, or investments.


You had Martha Stewart pilloried, jailed, and shackled for trying to sell her property, that she owned, before its value decreased(because of a faulty decision by the government, that is to say, explicitly its price was going to fall because of an action by the FDA). US Patent Office, I am more sure it was.

And here you are defending the Supreme Court, for helping prop up the value of dirt stolen by the government, to sell to others for the sole expressed reason of increasing its value. So that the munipalities in question can increase their tax revenue, because of increased jobs(taxes) and the property value of the land(property taxes).

Cut it anyway you want, it still smells like Linberger.

Should every person in New London have been forced to have their property effectively ruined, because of a handful?

So the people who don't like the town the way it is can force the people who actually like living there to sell up and move out? If those people are so desparate to have the city rejuvinated then they can sell their own homes for redevelopment and see if that helps.

So the people who don't like the town the way it is can force the people who actually like living there to sell up and move out? If those people are so desparate to have the city rejuvinated then they can sell their own homes for redevelopment and see if that helps.

Or freaking BUYING the property.

Not using the government to condemn your property, so that it could be bought for a song and a dance.

Seems to me that the property value was too HIGH in the first place, not too low. If you do not want to pay what someone values THEIR property at, you got three choices now:

1) Don't buy it.
2) Pay what it is worth.
3) Use your government to steal it from grandma moses, so you can buy it on the cheap.

Fricken Vogons!

property value

not property

Nothing happens to the property.


You had Martha Stewart pilloried, jailed, and shackled for trying to sell her property

Huh? I didn't give two ****s about Martha Stewart's crime. Hell I was the person who was pissed because its evidently a crime to not confess to illegalities under federal investigation. I thought Martha Stewart was an idiot for breaking a law for a measily 60k or so when she's worth hundreds of millions of dollars...but I never thought she should go to jail.


And here you are defending the Supreme Court, for helping prop up the value of dirt stolen by the government, to sell to others for the sole expressed reason of increasing its value. So that the munipalities in question can increase their tax revenue, because of increased jobs(taxes) and the property value of the land(property taxes).

Cut it anyway you want, it still smells like Linberger.

It doesn't smell as bad as a town where the population can't work because the employers have all left and the town can't bring in a new employer because a couple of absolute assholes refuse to sell their riverfront property. They'd have their community starve...

And its not stolen...stolen implies it wasn't paid for. This is absolutely no different than the railroads using emminent domain, as they have for centuries, without you folks complaining...only its for a much better cause.

But hey. Lets allow our towns and cities to stagnate and die as our economy shifts. Hey, you'll be free to own your land, though. For all the good it'll do you when you have to move to another town to get a job and your home isn't worth enough to pay for the move and a new home because your city's property values are in the toilet after years of economic decay.

And its not stolen...stolen implies it wasn't paid for.
Stolen implies it was taken without permission. If someone took your dog without your permission but left you a check to buy a new one, they'd still be guilty of stealing him.

So the people who don't like the town the way it is can force the people who actually like living there to sell up and move out? If those people are so desparate to have the city rejuvinated then they can sell their own homes for redevelopment and see if that helps.

There was a plan. A large redevelopment plan. Certain areas needed to be redeveloped. Oh, and the vast majority of the people who's property was needed for this plan did sell...without the need of emminant domain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyyr Lu'Storm
Or freaking BUYING the property.

Not using the government to condemn your property, so that it could be bought for a song and a dance.



A) Emminant Domain was used because these people wouldn't sell.

B) Emminant domain does not purchase property for a song and dance. Its expensive. The State almost always pays more than owners could get on the open market. The State also has to pay for the legal proceedings which inevitably come when using emminant domain. This is why it is used only when needed. Cities would much rather just buy the land without having to use emminant domain...but when people refuse to sell, it becomes a necessity.

Quote:
Seems to me that the property value was too HIGH in the first place, not too low. If you do not want to pay what someone values THEIR property at, you got three choices now:

1) Don't buy it.
2) Pay what it is worth.
3) Use your government to steal it from grandma moses, so you can buy it on the cheap.


Complete misrepresentation and flat out bull****tery, and you know it Fyyr.

Private industry can't use emminant domain without the interested government instigating it via having a reason. i.e. an established development plan which does not propose to take property from person A to give to person B. The decision specifically states that. I can't go to a city and say "Here I want to buy this land and build S-Mart, please condemn it". The city can't do it. What this decision does permit is a city to say "We need to buy this land in order to do something better with it. Here is what we propose..." and then decide who will actually do the development.

Fricken Vogons![/QUOTE]
__________________

Stolen implies it was taken without permission. If someone took your dog without your permission but left you a check to buy a new one, they'd still be guilty of stealing him.

That's because the Constitution doesnt permit a person to do so. It does permit, however, the Government to do so. It always has.

That's because the Constitution doesnt permit a person to do so. It does permit, however, the Government to do so. It always has.
The folks who drafted our constitution would have been appalled by this interpretation.

You had Martha Stewart pilloried, jailed, and shackled for trying to sell her property, that she owned, before its value decreased(because of a faulty decision by the government, that is to say, explicitly its price was going to fall because of an action by the FDA). US Patent Office, I am more sure it was.

In the case of Martha, she had(certainly does not have) a stock brokers license. As part of that license, there are rules congress passed to prevent "insiders" benefitting from knowledge that is not pubicly known. At the time of her offense, she may not have had a stock brokers license but she did have one previously. This implies that should would have been aware of the law prohibiting insider trading.

If there was a public announcement of(and I forget the details of the company she traded[DNA?]) the FDA's withdrawl/ declared lawsuit before she traded, she would have been ok. The offense was trading shares before a public announcement which would lower future earnings.

The "folks" who drafted our Constitution would be appalled by most, if not all, of our modern life. Things that Congress, the President and the Supreme Court even have to THINK about would appall them. To be honest, much as the ED thing scares me, the Constitution was drafted to be a living doccument. One that can flex and change with the times without a lot of rewrites and amendments. In order for it to be that, the Judiciary was given the ability to interpret. Our Congress was given the ability to draft laws. The President was given the ability to speak and act as our CEO. It's rare for one branch to be able to do anything at all without at least one other checking on them and agreeing. It is a triangle of checks and balances.

The State almost always pays more than owners could get on the open market.


Real Estate is an auction marketplace. Where the seller is not NORMALLY and PREVIOUSLY forced to accept the bid price.

If someone, including the state, does not accept the sell price of property...then the value of the property, on the open market, is higher than they what they are willing to pay. The property is TOO expensive.

'what they could get on the open market' as you say it means, what others(who are not the owners) are willing to pay for the property. That the property obviously has more value to the existing owners, than prospective buyers. I agree with you there.

But all that just means is that you condone the state condemning property that individuals own and value higher than others, such that it could be sold for LESS than what the present owners value it at. Such that the prospective buyers may now buy it for less than what it was valued on the open market, by the previous owners.

How do you not know that the previous owners were not planning on having THEIR grandchildren develop a SuperMall of the 2050's, on the land? I am sure they were waiting until,,, there WERE buyers who could actually pay for what the land was worth.

Farmers in my state do that all the time. They have sat on and plowed dirt for 3-4 generations such that, NOW, the land is worth more to others than it is worth to them, they can sell it. My whole town is full of rich assed ex-farmers, who grandfathers and grandmothers farmed dirt and pig **** such that THEY(the grandchildren) could NOW sell the land to developers, or become developers themselves.

The "folks" who drafted our Constitution would be appalled by most, if not all, of our modern life.

True, but we are talking about the interpretation of the Constitution that they wrote.



Not whether or not one like to download on the internet.



By your sentiments, it makes perfect sense to just rewrite the thing from scratch. We take all the modern considerations.

Continental Congress II.

That would be very logical.
For, as you say, that it's value is diminished to the point that modern day life has to be accounted for...Let's just write it into it from the get go.

So, I had decided to not comment for a few days and it seems Aidon is taking it from all sides. LOL. As mentioned, my concern is an ever changing definition of words. How can Congress (legislative branch) or the President (the executive branch) oppose rewriting the dictionary definitions of words? That practice has implications far beyond this decision.

In any case, I spent some time looking up the words Public, Use and Public Use. When reading these definitions, I noticed one mention of public use slum clearance and redevelopment. I compared the individual words public and use with the words slum clearance and redevelopment. I tried to find a consistency between all these words and I can not find a consistency with the word redevelopment in the broadest sense of the word.

My issue with the SC decision is not with the word Eminent Domain but with the use of Eminent Domain. The use of Eminent Domain is governed by the word Public Use.

Next, broadening the definition of Public Use opens up the probability of "insiders" benefiting from political connections. This "insider" connection could lead to projects that are justified as Public Use while the majority of the public would not have access to this land after the land is sold to private owners. Where is the guarantee of public access to these lands taken by eminent domain?

So, I thought I would end this post by listing the definitions of Public, Use and Public use through a link. That keeps the post size down.
http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/public_use
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&s=public
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=70/7036d8e93cd5a118e30803730b2f57cb

In the case of Martha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart

ImClone scandal


Federal indictments and trial

In 2002, Stewart was under investigation for alleged insider trading for selling 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems on December 27, 2001 -- an allegation that has never been substantiated nor prosecuted in a court of law. On December 28, the Food and Drug Administration announced it would not review ImClone's application for Erbitux, which the company touted as a promising cancer drug. ImClone's stock plunged over 70% in the month after the news came out. Stewart has been a friend of ImClone founder Samuel Waksal, who has since pleaded guilty to six counts of wrongdoing related to insider trading before the announcement. On June 6, 2002, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, which was already investigating dubious ImClone trading, announced that it was probing Stewart's stock sale. On October 3, 2002, Stewart resigned from the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange. Through all the investigation and allegation, Stewart kept her public persona intact, focusing on her homemaking specialties and downplaying or ignoring the increasing clamor for answers about her role in the scandal.

On June 4, 2003, a federal grand jury in Manhattan indicted Stewart and her former broker Peter Bacanovic on nine criminal counts from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). By selling when she did, the government alleged Stewart avoided losses of $45,673. The charges included securities fraud, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Stewart was not indicted on the original charge of insider trading, but only for the coverup that ensued. Stewart maintained her innocence, pleading not guilty, saying she had a standing order with Bacanovic to sell her shares if ImClone stock fell below $60. Stewart resigned as CEO and chairman of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia on the same day she was indicted, but remained on the company's board.

The day after her indictment, Stewart took out a full-page advertisement in USA Today and launched a website with an open letter of defense "to my friends and loyal supporters." She said, "I want you to know that I am innocent — and that I will fight to clear my name... The government's attempt to criminalize these actions makes no sense to me... I am confident I will be exonerated of these baseless charges."

The SEC later filed a related civil suit against Stewart with charges of insider trading. Stewart's trial was initially set for January 12, 2004, at the request of her lawyers who said they needed plenty of time to analyze the evidence. The trial eventually began on January 20 In New York City presided over by U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum. During the trial, Stewart maintained her innocence.

On February 27, 2004, Judge Cederbaum threw out the charge of securities fraud against Stewart. This was the most serious charge; it could have led to up to 10 years in prison with a million dollar fine. The judge called the charge "unfounded" and said that "no jury could feasibly find it to be accurate."

On March 5, 2004, Stewart was found guilty by a jury of eight women and four men on all four remaining counts against her: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements. [2] The maximum sentence for these convictions combined is 20 years in prison. The jury deliberated for three days following the five-week trial before reaching its verdict. Sentencing was set for June 17. Following Stewart's conviction, a message was posted on her website, reading, in part, "I am obviously distressed by the jury's verdict but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have the confidence and enduring support of my family and friends. I will appeal the verdict and continue to fight to clear my name. I believe in the fairness of the judicial system and remain confident that I will ultimately prevail."

The folks who drafted our constitution would have been appalled by this interpretation.

I suspect the folks who drafted our constitution would be far more appalled at a great many things in our nation today.

They may even have said, "Well no ****..why do you think we put the clause in there?"

Where is the guarantee of public access to these lands taken by eminent domain?

Where's the guarantee of public access for a power-line? Or a telephone line? You can't access them...they don't belong to you. Where's the guarantee of public access for a railroad? There is none..in fact, you're trespassing if you walk on it.

Where's the public access for a stadium? You can't go in a stadium without permission.

What commonality do these things have? They provide a benefit for the people and community as a whole.

There was a plan. A large redevelopment plan. Certain areas needed to be redeveloped.

The fact there is a plan is irrelevant. Feudal barons and collectivists had plans do to great things with the land under their authority without the consent of the people who actually lived on it.

The land was not in a bad state. The judgement admitted that the existing housing was of reasonable quality I think and it was by no means a slum area.

The main problem is that the justification is about wealth. The 'need' for this development is about a 'need' for wealth generation. Every part of America however wants more wealth. Every part of the country wants more jobs. That means every part of the country can take people's private land to build office blocks under this ruling as everywhere 'needs' more wealth. Will the law really be setting standards for how poor a neighbouthood has to be, or is potentially going to become, before it 'needs' wealth and jobs instead of 'desiring' wealth and jobs? I don't think so.

Of course the justification is about wealth. Everything in our nation is about wealth. We are a capitalist society. But when the major employer in a city is pulled away (it was a military base, which was closed), the city MUST bring in new jobs. The city government did what it was supposed to do...it found an employer and worked out a plan in order to bring that employer to the city.

And a few ****ing assholes wanted to put the kilbosh on the entire thing by not selling their homes? They basically wanted to say "We have ours, the rest of you who actually need these jobs can go **** off, I want my riverside property". Well **** them.

True, but we are talking about the interpretation of the Constitution that they wrote.Exactly. And when the Constitution was written I doubt that it's authors had any CLUE that topics such as abortion, Social Security, welfare, women's suffrage, desegregation, date rape, FEDERAL income tax, racial and gender equality, etc, etc, etc, would be a concern for posterity. HOWEVER, they INTENTIONALLY drafted the Constitution with the flexibility to let us meet these challenges without the need to rewrite the pages of our Constitution.

By your sentiments, it makes perfect sense to just rewrite the thing from scratch. We take all the modern considerations....
For, as you say, that it's value is diminished to the point that modern day life has to be accounted for...Let's just write it into it from the get go.You are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said any such thing. My statement "The 'folks' who drafted our Constitution would be appalled by most, if not all, of our modern life." was a simple statement. I believe that they WOULD be appalled by so many things that our newer laws have been directed towards. HOWEVER, in their infinite wisdom, the drafters of our Constitution created a doccument that, even with the DRASTIC contrasts between society then and now, can fit both and all without rewrite.

HOWEVER, they INTENTIONALLY drafted the Constitution with the flexibility to let us meet these challenges without the need to rewrite the pages of our Constitution.

Oh my, do you really believe that? There are methods listed in the constitution for changing it but those methods seem to be ignored these days which speaks to the extent government has intervened in to individuals lives.

You are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said any such thing..

I apologize if that is what I did.


Those were my words. I said that.

Everything in our nation is about wealth. We are a capitalist society. But when the major employer in a city is pulled away (it was a military base, which was closed), the city MUST bring in new jobs.

The local government creating jobs for its citizens is an very socialist concept. The classic capitalist solution is for the workers to move to where the work is and for employers to locate themselves where skilled workers are available.

And a few ****ing assholes wanted to put the kilbosh on the entire thing by not selling their homes? .... Well **** them.

Those people are not at fault. They have not gone out of their way to look for trouble. The trouble has come to them. They have done nothing to derserve being ****ed over by their local government. It was not just a handful of families holding out either, it was seventeen or so.

Oh my, do you really believe that?Do I believe what I posted? You bet I do! There are methods listed in the constitution for changing it but those methods seem to be ignored these days which speaks to the extent government has intervened in to individuals lives.I don't understand where you come up with that statement. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. But judging from previous posts I don't believe that you have read our Constitution yet, so I understand how this comes as a surprise to you. :rolleyes:

The local government creating jobs for its citizens is an very socialist concept. The classic capitalist solution is for the workers to move to where the work is and for employers to locate themselves where skilled workers are available.

Pure capitalism is barbaric. Its social darwinism. The job of the local government is to do things like bring employment to the town. And I'm a very socialist type of guy.



Those people are not at fault. They have not gone out of their way to look for trouble. The trouble has come to them. They have done nothing to derserve being ****ed over by their local government. It was not just a handful of families holding out either, it was seventeen or so.

They were at fault. They were putzes. They were a handful, 15 out of 115 lots in the area. Five of those fifteen didn't even live on the land they refused to sell. They weren't ****ed over by local government, they tried to **** over their city.

15 out of 115 is quite a lot, a significant minority. You can't make out that it's just isolated dingbats.

Why should they sacrifice their homes for a town that wants them to sell out and move out? What has that town done for them that deserves some self sacrifice and civic duty, when that duty is getting kicked out? What are you doing insulting these people you've never met for doing nothing more than wanting to live their own lives on their own property?

If you're calling them profiteers, then how is that worse than the other profiteers who want to knock down people's homes, build an office block on top, and make some wealth from it?

I suspect the folks who drafted our constitution would be far more appalled at a great many things in our nation today.
No doubt. However, I think that the reinterpretation of "public use" as "public good" would have particularly alarmed them. You can make the argument that our constitution is a "living document" but this reinterpretation fundamentally changes the original meaning.

Does anyone know if there is anything that restricts the application of eminent domain to land or can it be, at least theoretically, applied to any form of property? For example, would it be possible for the government to effectively confiscate guns by buying them all for the "public good?"

If it could be expanded to guns, it'd be rather self-defeating, as they'd have to pay for your weapons and you could turn around and buy new ones /shrug.

Let me end this discussion by saying this:

The alternative to the government using emminent domain to permit private entities to build upon it, for re-development projects, is fairly simple. The Government itself will do so, it will buy the property, it will develop it, and it will sell/lease and leaseit. Socialism.

In the instance case, the private company involved was controlled by the City. The city basically, from what I understand, started a company and obtained private investors in that company. The alternative is to raise taxes and do it without the private middleman, and its a poor alternative given the many means of evading taxes.

But towns must be re-developed from time to time, and there will always be those who will have to sell their land in order to effect these necessary changes. The alternative is a nation of major metropolises with destitude specks of former towns between them and a great many more people will suffer the loss of their homes and land as a result.