It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: (Breaking) Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Bush didn't elect everyone in Congress, but it doesn't stop him and his cohorts from getting what they want done with a near rubber stamp.

You underestimate the corrupting influence of the type of power that has been accumulated by this administration.


The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have lifetime appointments and their salary can never be decreased, and no Justice has ever been impeached. They have nothing to fear from either Congress or the President. Believe me, they do whatever they want. If they were fearful, the votes would be quite different, remember the disasterous appoint of Souter by Bush Sr., he's voted against the Republican view at almost every opportunity.




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   


The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have lifetime appointments and their salary can never be decreased, and no Justice has ever been impeached. They have nothing to fear from either Congress or the President. Believe me, they do whatever they want. If they were fearful, the votes would be quite different, remember the disasterous appoint of Souter by Bush Sr., he's voted against the Republican view at almost every opportunity.


Then how do you explain the political shift in the court that came along with the new administration?

The Supreme Court would NOT have ruled like this in the past. It's a reflection of todays political environment, IMO.

If you think the courts are not influenced by politics, you don't know as much about our government as you think you do.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Please give examples to back up your perceived shift in opinion.

I see absolutely none.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
There have been many cases of this in my area. Land of TVA, usually, it is just for TVA use and for the greater good. In the 50's they flooded much of the farmland and the TN river now flows through. I can see the greater good of that action.

Here is a home that was once 600 acres and now is 50. This website went up when Knox county was trying to take about 20 more acres for itself. The whole story is there. Seems these landowners are winning, mainly with the fact it is a historical landmark www.savecallawayslanding.com...

NOW, the government is condemning land and SELLING It for development. Yes, they are selling it for subdivisions. They TOOK farmland, where people were living and farming and they are selling it for much more than they bought the "condemned" property. It is in an area that is still spacious, yet close in. Not much longer.

We have looked at farmettes(I have horses) and I will stay in my subdivisions. I don't want to invest the time and money into something if the government can come take it.

Welcome to the introduction to socialism

[edit on 6/23/2005 by llpoolej]

[edit on 6/23/2005 by llpoolej]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
This is wrong. I do not believe that the Amendment V was created so that land could be taken from citizens to build a shopping mall. I can see for a highway project or a dam for electricity but not a shopping mall.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I guess the thing that is amusing about this thread is that, there seems to be a lot of peeps who are mad over this thing. Now, what are you going to do? You've typed a post indicating your anger ... Is that enough?

The government right to emminent domain has never been about private property being taken by private individuals or even corporate entities? If that is the case, what is it about? How can you make a difference that matters? Is creating a dissenting post on www.abovetopsecret.com enough? How many of you think this is so?

Just curious.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Bottom line here is GREED GREED GREED of people working in our government who no longer look out for the interest of the people because money has become their primary interest in making their own lives better & to hell with those they are supposed to be representing. They abuse the power we've given them by using their position as leverage in order to benefit themselves and their cronies. They have crossed the line between Good & Evil & they themselves have become the real criminals.

This is the kind of offense that can turn people against the government. While maybe not quite a William Wallace scenario (Braveheart), I would not be one bit surprised if some homeowner got pushed over the edge & went on a personal battle against those responsible for taking his property if there is indeed some sinister greed hiding underneath the so called public interest.

Would you convict a guy who killed people responsible for robbing him of his home?

On the other hand, this is a difficult issue and I could be convinced that in some circumstances such as the building of a public transportation way or the demolishing of unhealthy slum/drug gang type areas may be better for all in the long run.

Back to the Bottom line here, I would say as long as they can work out what just compensation is I would be all right with it.

Though I've seen too many circumstances where the government has taken the homes of old people who have diminished capacity and given them 30-50% of the real market value as compensation. That's the problem is the government becomes partners with the often money grubbing developers & takes advantage of the people they're supposed to be representing in favor of those who contribute to their own causes.



[edit on 23-6-2005 by outsider]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   


I guess the thing that is amusing about this thread is that, there seems to be a lot of peeps who are mad over this thing. Now, what are you going to do? You've typed a post indicating your anger ... Is that enough?

The government right to emminent domain has never been about private property being taken by private individuals or even corporate entities? If that is the case, what is it about? How can you make a difference that matters? Is creating a dissenting post on www.abovetopsecret.com enough? How many of you think this is so?

Just curious.


I can honestly say I've already written to my representative. I've only contacted an elected official one other time in my life, when they started the smoking ban in the town I used to live in. As a smoker and a bar owner (most of the customers smoked and it was terrible for business), it infuriated me. Didn't do any good, but I tried. Now, as a citizen and hopefully a future property owner, this is worlds worse than any smoking ban ever could be. I could quit smoking if I wanted to and stay right where I'm at. I can't exactly quit living on US soil unless I move to another country, and although things are getting worse, I'm not crazy about that idea just yet.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   


Please give examples to back up your perceived shift in opinion.

I see absolutely none.


Several I can think of off the top of my head include the consistent rulings by the court against the ADA, letting Arthur Anderson off the hook for Enron, the current ruling we're discussing ...

If you think the Supreme Court stands up for the little guys (as it's SUPPOSED to), think again!

Read them yourself and draw your own conclusions:

www.supremecourtus.gov...



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I'm rather sensitive to this issue, as the world's largest coal mine is slowly making its way to my family farm(5 miles away right now). My family is willing to sell, but it would need to be at a premium(60 years of living here creates memories). With this ruling, the government can pay mere property value(in the middle of nowhere), and sell to one of the countries largest mining companies, who will turn around and make untold millions through the operation.

I can see in the near future where people will die as a result of this ruling. Not all Americans are rational and level-headed individuals.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge

Originally posted by bortsamson
well i guess you guys now know how
the indians felt, perhaps you'll get a few
shiny beads for compensation before being
sent to a (trailer park)reservation

what goes around comes around



I think the quote "Jane, you ignorant slut..." comes to mind.

It has nothing to do with the sins of our fathers, it has to do with our own ignorance.

Deny Ignorance...

If you are an American that EVER plans on owning a house, you should be concerned about this issue.

It has nothing to do with the sins of our fathers, it has to do with our own ignorance

i bet thats what the indians said lol :-)



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I really do disagree with what's going on here, but we can't look to the Supreme Court to fix all ills.

The primary responsibility here is with the local and State government that is doing this.

The Congress could pass laws clarifying what Amendment V of the Constitution means by "public use."

The last defense is the Supreme Court, which, in my opinion, should do a literal interpretation of the Constitution in the light of our concept of Federalism and State's rights, which it appears to have done so here.

The problem lies with the State law and Federal law, not with the Court in this issue.

It's easy to change laws, it's not easy to rein in a runaway Supreme Court that's legislating from the bench, so our efforts here should be to change the law, not the Court.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
sandy has the best retort;

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.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"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."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist




so the moral is buy a house in a suburban area with no appeal to private development....as a side note, could this by fought with zoning laws ?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Congress could pass laws clarifying what Amendment V of the Constitution means by "public use."

The last defense is the Supreme Court, which, in my opinion, should do a literal interpretation of the Constitution in the light of our concept of Federalism and State's rights, which it appears to have done so here.


How exactly the taking of private land for commercial development be a literal interpretation of public use? If that's the case, then why buy land on the market when you can just go to the government?

EDIT:
syrinx, I liked that one too; Thomas had a pretty good one, but I can't seem to find it now. O'Conner's is now in my signature though--I think it's a great reflection of where we're going.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by MCory1]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
We are slowly, but surely losing our individual rights. One step at a time, they are going.


I think they are already gone.......some parts of the government, however clandestine, can do whatever they want when it comes to information gathering on the domestic population, and the corporations have the legal system cornered when it comes to legalese.......the average american doesn't speak that language and that allows for alot of things to fall through the cracks.

America is paying for her ignorance.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   


I really do disagree with what's going on here, but we can't look to the Supreme Court to fix all ills.

The primary responsibility here is with the local and State government that is doing this.

The Congress could pass laws clarifying what Amendment V of the Constitution means by "public use."

The last defense is the Supreme Court, which, in my opinion, should do a literal interpretation of the Constitution in the light of our concept of Federalism and State's rights, which it appears to have done so here.

The problem lies with the State law and Federal law, not with the Court in this issue.

It's easy to change laws, it's not easy to rein in a runaway Supreme Court that's legislating from the bench, so our efforts here should be to change the law, not the Court.


I fail to see how interpreting 'public use' as 'hand it over to anyone with enough money' is valid.

Your plan would create totally different seizure laws all over the United States - which would really become a 'buyer beware' free for all for anyone wanting to buy private property. It won't be the big boys who get hurt by this.

I disagree HUGELY with the idea that the court did not create a BIGGER problem with it's ruling today.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Thanks for the Applause Djohnsto77. Congrats on a ATS council position. I didnt know you were elected


[edit on 23/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
How exactly the taking of private land for commercial development be a literal interpretation of public use? If that's the case, then why buy land on the market when you can just go to the government?


If the State and local governments say that a mall is better for the greater public betterment of this area than a few houses, why does the Federal government need to interfere if there's no specific Federal laws to better define the term.

I hate to say it but I think the outcome of the decision is wrong, but the Supreme Court interpreted the law correctly. Again, it's the LAW that needs to be changed, not the COURT.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If the State and local governments say that a mall is better for the greater public betterment of this area than a few houses, why does the Federal government need to interfere if there's no specific Federal laws to better define the term.

I hate to say it but I think the outcome of the decision is wrong, but the Supreme Court interpreted the law correctly. Again, it's the LAW that needs to be changed, not the COURT.


You are right, there should be a law for this. But in the same breath, at what point can the federal government step in and decide that the local government's opinion of what's better is wrong? What else are there no laws for that the cities of the nation can circumvent for "public betterment"?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
It's certainly in the perogative of the Congress to flesh out the details of the Constitution and better define it.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join