Property Rights - Again

[Bob Lamb]

My grandparent's ancestral home (built in 1841) is owned clear and free by the family. The structure is at the middle of a semi-blind 90 degree turn which the State of NY wants to "widen" for safety because it is a "truck" route. There has been a standing offer for years for the property - never accepted. There is no commercial issue involved - but who is to say that what this ruling will do next ?

 

The 5th Amendment has just been gutted like catfish on a hot Mississippi day.

 

Bob Lonsberry misses sometimes - but not today

 

"Simply put, your home is your home only as long as the government says its your home.

 

But the moment somebody with pull covets your home, business or property, it's gone.

 

You do not have the right to own property. Not after yesterday.

 

It went away.

 

The Fifth Amendment says "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

Nowhere in there does it authorize the taking of private property for private use. The Constitution doesn't authorize it, but now the Supreme Court does.

 

Which makes two things very important: Who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

And the Second Amendment."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?go=4

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks Bob.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

[JimBob2232]

As I said in another thread...It was the liberal wing of the court that decided this. Remember this when bush appoints someone deemed "Too Conservative" to the supreme court.

[blzrul]

Then you need to work at your state and local governmental level to ensure your property is protected. In the state of Washington the constitution is restrictive as to the definition of "public use" (not "public good" and there's a difference). And land that qualifies would be needed for something like roadways, trains etc OR be considered a blight, or dangerous, or other. Kinda like the South Bronx.

 

But seriously, this ruling is just a high-level interpretation. Before you panic check your state and local laws.

[30dive]

As I said in another thread...It was the liberal wing of the court that decided this.  Remember this when bush appoints someone deemed "Too Conservative" to the supreme court.

367588[/snapback]

 

 

As someone who prides himself on the abuse he gets from his liberal and consevative friends, I do admit that I tend to sit just a wee bit to the left of the fence on most issues. That said, JimBob you are right on target here!

 

This issue is one of the scariest rulings I have seen come down in a very long time. If ever there was time for a constitutional amendment this issue just might be it.

 

NONE OF US ARE SAFE! At least not from greedy local politicians.

 

The only sense I can make out of this ruling is that, maybe, just maybe the court is saying, put it on the voters, if they don't want private property taken for "future tax benifits" to the locality, then throw the elected ones out.

[blzrul]

So where is the Republican party outrage over this ruling if it's a "liberal versus conservative" thing?

 

I imagine they're licking their chops.

 

Sometimes the Supreme Court's rulings are not popular...but remember they don't make law, they intepret it.

 

The only advice I ever got was to "get over it". I guess that's the same here if you're not willing to deal with it at the state level...you can B word, whine and continue to rend your garments. This isn't great but it's NOT the worst decision the SCOTUS ever made, not by a long shot.

[JimBob2232]

So where is the Republican party outrage over this ruling if it's a "liberal versus conservative" thing?

 

I imagine they're licking their chops.

 

Sometimes the Supreme Court's rulings are not popular...but remember they don't make law, they intepret it.

 

The only advice I ever got was to "get over it". I guess that's the same here if you're not willing to deal with it at the state level...you can B word, whine and continue to rend your garments. This isn't great but it's NOT the worst decision the SCOTUS ever made, not by a long shot.

 

First off, I dont see much outrage from ANY politician. from ANY party. If that doesnt scare you, you dont have a pulse.

 

I understand the whole "interpret the law" thing. And I agree. That is what they SHOULD be doing. But more and more often courts start making law. In this case, I dont feel they are so much making the law, but interpreting it incorrectly. The constitution appears to be quite clear. I dont understand how "Public Use" can be interpereted to mean "private development"

 

What I fear most now, is that the issue of what is "Just compensation" will arrise. Given this ruling, the SCOTUS will likely rule that the local government (the same entity who decided to take your property) will be the one who will determine whether given compensation is just. This is a major problem.

 

As for the states, I am a big fan of states rights. The federal government currently has too much power, and I am the first one in line to want to take that away from them. However...this is a constitutional issue, and therefore one that needs to be dealt with on a federal level. For whatever reason, the SCOTUS got this wrong. We need to ammend the constitution on this one. A government of the people, by the people and for the people....yeah right.

[Chilly]

All I have to say is the Democrats or Republicans (I don't care who) should introduce legislation to change this.

[Terry Tate]

All I have to say is the Democrats or Republicans (I don't care who) should introduce legislation to change this.

A law to keep liberals off the Supreme Court? Can they do that?

[Ghost of BiB]

All I have to say is the Democrats or Republicans (I don't care who) should introduce legislation to change this.

367636[/snapback]

 

Would that require an ammendment?

[Chilly]

Would that require an ammendment?

367644[/snapback]

 

Not sure, but if it requires an amendment we should still do it to clarify the 5th

[Ghost of BiB]

So where is the Republican party outrage over this ruling if it's a "liberal versus conservative" thing?

 

I imagine they're licking their chops.

 

Sometimes the Supreme Court's rulings are not popular...but remember they don't make law, they intepret it.

 

The only advice I ever got was to "get over it".  I guess that's the same here if you're not willing to deal with it at the state level...you can B word, whine and continue to rend your garments.  This isn't great but it's NOT the worst decision the SCOTUS ever made, not by a long shot.

367632[/snapback]

 

This could rank right up there. It's pretty dumb.

[blzrul]

I wonder if anyone here besides me has looked up their state laws around this? Maybe that's why everyone's scared and I am not. I guess it makes more sense to rail about it....I think you'll find it's a tempest in a teacup.

 

The government could ALWAYS take your property. Even without this ruling, if the government was determined enough, no matter how tenuous the reason, it could happen. The little guy is powerless. This ruling changes NOTHING unless you live in an area with whose laws give total deference to federal law, or where you have a whole bunch of corrupt politicians.

 

This reminds me of the duct-tape-and-plastic panic. My goodness. grow spines.

[Alaska Darin]

This reminds me of the duct-tape-and-plastic panic.  My goodness. grow spines.

367693[/snapback]

From our resident expert on such things. Read and heed.

[Thurman's Helmet]

Then you need to work at your state and local governmental level to ensure your property is protected.  In the state of Washington the constitution is restrictive as to the definition of "public use" (not "public good" and there's a difference).  And land that qualifies would be needed for something like roadways, trains etc OR be considered a blight, or dangerous, or other.  Kinda like the South Bronx. 

 

But seriously, this ruling is just a high-level interpretation.  Before you panic check your state and local laws.

367628[/snapback]

 

Right, because we all have the time between working, raising a family and maintaining a marriage to become local activists to ensure our property is protected.

[blzrul]

Right, because we all have the time between working, raising a family and maintaining a marriage to become local activists to ensure our property is protected.

367724[/snapback]

Given that you're so busy then I marvel that you have time to do the research needed to cast an intelligent vote.

 

So that means you DON'T know your state and local laws. I guess it's just easier to rend your garments and assume the worst.

 

I am glad that the colonists weren't too busy with their families. And what about all those soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan? Don't they have families? Marriages? Homes? I guess THEY don't count, you're the only one that matters.

 

"When the people lead, the leaders follow".

 

What happens when the people don't lead? Look around. OK, resume rending.

[OGTEleven]

This ruling changes NOTHING unless you live in an area.... or where you have a whole bunch of corrupt politicians.

 

 

367693[/snapback]

 

 

I doubt too many people live in an area like that.

[Alaska Darin]

I doubt too many people live in an area like that. 

367783[/snapback]

You'll have to excuse Debbie, she only lives in ideology land when the Liberals are screwing us over.

[VABills]

I wonder if anyone here besides me has looked up their state laws around this?  Maybe that's why everyone's scared and I am not.  I guess it makes more sense to rail about it....I think you'll find it's a tempest in a teacup.

 

The government could ALWAYS take your property.  Even without this ruling, if the government was determined enough, no matter how tenuous the reason, it could happen.  The little guy is powerless.  This ruling changes NOTHING unless you live in an area with whose laws give total deference to federal law, or where you have a whole bunch of corrupt politicians.

 

This reminds me of the duct-tape-and-plastic panic.  My goodness. grow spines.

367693[/snapback]

 

Washington is the only one of 8 states where what you say is true. In every other state the ruling would be for the state and they would be permitted to take your land if they deemed that someone else could make better use of it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susette_Kelo_...ew_London_et_al

 

Obviously, the effect of Kelo remains to be seen. It will have little effect in the eight states that specifically prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. Most legal experts do not see a rush by cities to take advantage of the decision.