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.

 

Supreme Courts rules that Gov't can sieze Land for Economic development.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
www.washingtonpost.com...

This ruling completely invalidates property rights, as long as the new development spurs increased taxes. I cannot think of anything as dangerous to individual liberty recently as this.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by soulforge]




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This is the end of the United States of the founding fathers and the beginning of a new USA. The founding fathers valued property rights very highly and now they almost mean nothing.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Now you'll start to understand the Native point of view.

Our problem has never been with newcomers like yourselves- it has always been with the power-mad control freaks who came with your ancestors and seized our land and rights without permission. We would like you all to live in peace with us here as Brothers. But they made that impossible. Now that we are no longer a serious problem, they are turning their attention to you, their own subjects. I suggest you follow the course of action we Natives outlined to you before the American Revolution. Go to your elected representatives, the Congress, and press for your Rights as Englishmen under the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Draw a line in the sand that says 'This Far and No Farther'.

The Congress has the power to reverse this decision through Legislation.

Even if you own no property, press the Congress- for if you ever succeed in the rat race through luck, without the right to SOVEREIGNTY in Property, you can be WIPED OUT overnight with the stroke of a pen.

'Rights are not Granted. They are Taken.'- Thomas Jefferson

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Well maybe the 5th Admendment should be fought with the 2nd Admendment...anyone up for a cival war yet?????



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
They [supreme court] tried to justify this by saying the state governments know best when if comes to booting people out of their own homes and bulldozing them....oh, I mean "revenue-enhancing land development". That's strange, didn't they just rule that states cannot make their own laws for the use of medical marijuana? A law in favor of ruining people's lives for profit? Sure, why not!
A law that could potentially help many people [backed by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS and reliable data]? Nope, you're just gonna have to take these expensive pills.

What the #%$#@ is this!? To answer my own question....Corporate kickbacks. There's a doctor in the town I live in who supposedly gets several thousand dollars as a "bonus" to perscribe their medication [He told this to some co-workers at a huge party he threw using the money he got from these kickbacks]. The more people the doctor doles it out to, the more money. It stands to reason that our government gets the same treatment from huge corporate interest groups [not that it's anything new].
I'm also curious, did they happen to define what "just compensation" is? I've read about our government's notion of "just compensation" to the American Indian and quite frankely I'm less than impressed.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
``

it was only a matter of time....

(on various media outleys, nytimes & yahoo & et al->

A divided Supreme Court [4-5] ruled that local governments
may seize homes & businesses against their will
for private development.............where economic growth
conflicts with individual property rights.)

if you blend this new ruling with the accellerated property taxes being assessed...it would seem the glitter is falling off the housing bubble!

emminent domain? is now including speculative ventures?
on top of the favorable tax breaks given to corps. as incentive to start-up or relocate in the local governments' jurisdiction??

Corporate America & Tort Limits......their running amok!!



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
just an FYI...

some good discussion going on here also :

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Here you go, the liberal socialists on the supreme court strike again. This equates to wealthy developers in the Private sector are now able to kick people out of their homes. Hopefully W can get some people who understand the constitution on the Supreme Court to stop these radical leftists.

Judges who voted to allow the private developers to take your home:
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer
John Paul Stevens

Judges Against:
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice O'Connor




[edit on 23-6-2005 by Apoc]


Ox

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Of the Judges you named.. Which were the two (R) recently appointed by Bush? I mean, what is the world coming to when the people that are voted into office by the population TURNS on that population and says "I can do what I like when I like and there's not a thing that YOU can do about it".. This government needs to be ousted one way or another, Im sorry to say it. But it has to happen, The people they are meant to be protecting and serving this country for are the ones they are making homeless for their own personal gain. I guess the only ones who are left to serve and protect are the ones fighting someone elses war simply because they are sworn to protect their country and do it selflessly. I dont see Cheney.. or Bush in Battle Dress Uniform with an M41A in their arms firing round after round at people who are fighting for what they believe.

This is a disgrace



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
Here you go, the liberal socialists on the supreme court strike again.


Well said.

Yeah, every home owner in ATS should be piping up to comment on this thread and the fact of the matter is any city can take home any home from any person if they see a profit and thats just wrong.

I would be interested in hearing the Liberals in here defend their "Comrades" vote on this matter.


Max



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
If i read correctly, they said states could regulate this how they wanted. So the surpreme court did nothing new today accept give a definition of what they think "public use" is, and then said states could further regulate this....if that is the case, i have nothing against it. I dunno, did i read it right?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   


Just to set the record straight:

Anthony Kennedy - appointed by Ronald Reagan - Conservative
www.supremecourthistory.org...

David Souter - Republican - appointed by George Bush I
www.supremecourthistory.org...

Stephen G. Breyer - appointed by Bill Clinton - liberal
www.supremecourthistory.org...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - appointed by Bill Clinton - liberal
www.supremecourthistory.org...

John Paul Stevens - appointed by Gerald Ford - moderate
www.supremecourthistory.org...

Trying to paint this action as a liberal conspiracy is just plain wrong. The reality is that the Republican principles of states rights and appealing to corporate greed is the major influencing factor, IMO.

Clearly, with so many of the 'for' judges being appointed by Republican presidents, the argument that this is a liberal conspiracy is completely false. Please refrain.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
LA_Max,


Originally posted by LA_Maximus

Originally posted by Apoc
Here you go, the liberal socialists on the supreme court strike again.


Well said.

Yeah, every home owner in ATS should be piping up to comment on this thread and the fact of the matter is any city can take home any home from any person if they see a profit and thats just wrong.

I would be interested in hearing the Liberals in here defend their "Comrades" vote on this matter.


Max


As usual you fail to let the facts of a case get in the way of a good rant at one of your hate targets.

If you look at those who voted for this you will find 3 out the 5 who voted for it are Republican appointees.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajm4481
If i read correctly, they said states could regulate this how they wanted. So the surpreme court did nothing new today accept give a definition of what they think "public use" is, and then said states could further regulate this....if that is the case, i have nothing against it. I dunno, did i read it right?


Yes you did read it correctly. This judgement basically removed any federal protection against such acts and left it up to the state governments. It doesn't guaruntee that these things will happen across the board. It does, IMO, say something about the judges who voted for this. I feel in some way it condones such action. If the states are such a better judge of what is right for the local community why not let them set their own drug laws [Ex. medical marijuana], health care systems and such? Oh wait, that's not best for corporate america.....



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I never mentioned republican or democrat in my post. I referenced liberal vs conservative. It's obvious that some of the judges mentioned as being appointed by republicans have a liberal ruling record. Many were appointed under the guise of "moderates" to try to be "nice nice" with the libs in the senate at the time. Now it is coming back to bite us.




top topics



 
0

log in

join