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.

 

Critical Thinking about the Eminent Domain Decision

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
First Off the subject of Eminent Domain is being discussed or has been discussed here on ATS many times. Below you will find links to many of these discussions.

Eminent domain: Do you really Own anything?
ETHICS: Private Property and Eminent Domain
Eminent Domain rears it's ugly head again
Eminent domain information of term that the idea was established since the colonial time/USA
NEWS: Supreme Court to Rule on Right to seize Private Property
Eminent Domain

My thoughts on this matter are simply that this decision is bringing America one step closer to exactly what the Founding Fathers of this country wished to avoid. So to prove my point lets see what the founding fathers have to say about personal property.

John Adams

Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty…..

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

link


William Bradfor

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.

link


John Trenchard

To live securely, happily, and independently, is the End and Effect of Liberty; and it is the Ambition of all Men to live agreeably to their own Humours and Discretion. Nor did ever any Man that could live satisfactorily without a Master, desire to live under one; and real or fancied Necessity alone makes Men the Servants, Followers, and Creatures of one another. And therefore all Men are animated by the Passion of acquiring and defending Property, because Property is the best Support of that Independency, so passionately desired by all Men. Even Men the most dependent have it constantly in their Heads and their Wishes, to become independent one Time or other; and the Property which they are acquiring, or mean to acquire by that Dependency, is intended to bring them out of it, and to procure them an agreeable Independency.

Link


William Blackstone

The third absolute right, inherent in every Englishman, is that of property: which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land.

Link


House of Representatives of Massachusetts January 12, 1758

It is observable that though many have disregarded life, and contemned liberty, yet there are few men who do not agree that property is a valuable acquisition, which ought to be held sacred. Many have fought, and bled, and died for this, who have been insensible to all other obligations. Those who ridicule the ideas of right and justice, faith and truth among men, will put a high value upon money. Property is admitted to have an existence, even in the savage state of nature…..

The security of right and property, is the great end of government. Surely, then, such measures as tend to render right and property precarious, tend to destroy both property and government; for these must stand and fall together.

Link


James Madison

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

Link


I could quote more and more the thoughts and idea’s of the founding fathers but I believe everyone can see the point. One thing I would like to put some emphasis on is a statement that appears twice: The security of right and property, is the great end of government. What does that mean to you? To me that means government is supposed to protect property rights not trample them down. Our government has surely come to the conclusion that they are wiser than the individual.

Now what does the constitution say? In Amendment V of the constitution you will find the following words.



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


Where in that phrase does it state that government can seize property for private use? The answer is it doesn’t but since doing so could increase revenue to the government the seizure will be allowed.

The method the supreme court used to allow this decision was by liberally defining “public use” as “public purpose.”(straylight.law.cornell.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Link) Thus not interrupting the law but actually rewriting the Constitution.

So what does this mean for the future? Well, the Supreme Court has already made it quite clear that it can rewrite the first part of the fifth amendment so the next logical step is to rewrite the second half, the half concerning Just Compensation. In the future a government decides to seize private property to build a housing project. The government argues that since they are assisting the poorest among us that just compensation is really less than market value. Or they are seizing the lad to make a drug rehab center or a school and they don’t want to pay market value. They will argue that fair and just in these cases is less than market value.

Well, these are my thoughts what are yours?




[edit on 23-6-2005 by BlackJackal]




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
You're completely right. The next step will be robbing us... ME of just compensation. I own a home behind a hospital and they want to expand the hospital into my development. They have trying to do this for a while now but so far they have been unsuccessful...

My home is all I have, and damn if they try to take it. An apprasial was done recently and with the market the way it is... I paid $190k. The homes on the block were appraised for around $350K + last month!!! Not bad, but I doubt they would give us that "fair market value".

It's funny how "issues" arent "issues" until they affect you directly. The fact they can take my home is quiet scary.

Is their anyone here who has had to deal with issue? How did it play out?

peace



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
So the haves , have a major victory on their hands.......

Waterfront.........new london c t.......I wouldnt sell either
and I really bet they will get fair market value.....

The supreme court is taking more rights than the bloody pat act......1 or 2

AS G gordon would say......" suckers"................



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
More than anything, the decision reveals the moral and political bankruptcy of the left.
The party of "the little guy" has become the party of "we're the government and we know what's best for you".
And, oh, by the way, just ignore those developers stuffing money into our back pocket.
This is the first step toward what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe or Castro or Chavez have done in appropriating private property for thier own ends.
Forget abortion. This assault on constitutional rights could lead to conflict.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Here's the ruling:
apnews.myway.com...


In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.


Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, ...

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.


Scary, scary stuff when even ONE Supreme thinks it's okay to trample on property rights.

My street was surveyed for freeway expansion. Supposedly we would get fair market value + moving expenses.
Fortunately, my state has no money now to expand highways.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
.
Realist05,

This is the government supporting theft of property from one private party by another as long as the local government supports the theft.

I am a social liberal, economic conservative.

Maybe that is why i am dumbstruck by the squandering of 1/5 of a TRILLION dollars so pointlessly in Iraq, but that is another debate.

You social conservatives want to tell everyone what is and is not right for them by creating a state sponsored religion. Founded on the Barbarian edicts from 2 thousand years ago.

This is just one more freedom and right the government is taking in the name of knowing better than the average citizen how to run his/her personal life.

The government should not be dictating anything to individuals unless their collective survival is at stake.

Government should prevent the usery or abuse of one private party by another and not supporting it as the supreme court has done here.

Kudos for Sandra Day O'Connor for getting it right once again.


This is government corruption by big corporations [Walmart] depriving property rights to average citizens.
.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   


More than anything, the decision reveals the moral and political bankruptcy of the left.
The party of "the little guy" has become the party of "we're the government and we know what's best for you".
And, oh, by the way, just ignore those developers stuffing money into our back pocket.
This is the first step toward what Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe or Castro or Chavez have done in appropriating private property for thier own ends.
Forget abortion. This assault on constitutional rights could lead to conflict.


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, 23 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Wing-

Earl Warren was appointed by Ike, so that made him a conservative, too, by your standard, or should I refrain from pointing that out?

To call Kennedy, Souter and Stevens conservative is to simply ignore thier voting record. Your labels are meaningless.

And to disregard property rights in favor of collective "community" interests is classic socialist thinking, or crony capitalism at best.

They took that family's heritage along with thier property. When it comes time for them to take what is yours BY RIGHT, you may want to start repainting your own perspective.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   


And to disregard property rights in favor of collective "community" interests is classic socialist thinking, or crony capitalism at best.

They took that family's heritage along with thier property. When it comes time for them to take what is yours BY RIGHT, you may want to start repainting your own perspective.


Crony capitalism is a label I would accept. It is a rampant disease in Washington.

Don't assume I agree with this decision in any way shape or form.

Also don't assume I'm liberal - I was Republican for more than 20 years before this lot got into office. However, I am very pro constitution, and what I've seen in the past 8 years has eaten away at the Constitution to the point of revulsion.

To say that the Supreme Court has not leaned right since this administration got into office is to deny reality.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I too was a republican for over 20 years. I have seen my party morph into a a party that once stood for states rights and fiscal conservatism into a far right power mad, tool of the multinational corperations. There is no place for a moderate in the GOP anymore even at the local level.

It galls me to have to admit my kids were right. No more meanspirited ideology for me.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
News bulletin for you, slank, us "social conservatives" and our values in regard to this particular topic is clearly outlined in BlackJackal's opening volley.
I assure you, this verdict is not in line with the "Barbarian edicts" founded 2,000 years ago. You lack of knowledge on that point will hopefully come back to embarrass you one day. I say hopefully, because at least you will have the information then to know you spoke in ignorance today.

This nation was built on those "edicts" and any cursory and independant study would led you to this undeniable fact. Any study of today's chicanery, by the USSC as well as the rest of the government, makes it clear that they are intentionally straying from how things ought to be.

The problems with the social conservatives is that they will blame the liberals for all the missteps, and not see that those who speak to them with one side of their mouths will speak against them from the other side of thier mouths when behind closed doors.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
.
This nation was founded on getting rid of edicts of kings and governments, be they religious, economic, or social.

Of the people, by the people and for the people.

NOTE: in the above statement you will find no mention of God.

This nation is not here by divine right, the government has no divine rights to dictate to other people.

It should have ideals, aspirations of what we can be as better people.
God is an idea that is essentially DOA. It is absolute and dictatorial. Religious Dictatorship is still dictatorship.

Religion is an attempt by people to give themselves some presumptive importance.

Reality Check - look at where you exist in the Universe, you don't matter, I don't matter [except on a personal basis to myself]
The key to the Universe is humble assertion.
Nothing is certain.
Everything in reality is ad hoc.
Only in your religious nightmares is everything certain. It is called death.

Why can't they get it right in Iraq?
Because they are so certain they know what they are doing that they have become incapable of learning as they go along.

The future is made up of the mystic unknown. It may even let you try to second guess it using scientific methods, but it will still kick you in the *ss every once in a while just for good measure.

The notion that government officials know better than individuals how to make a properous society is pretty ludicrous. The government is empowered only because individuals go out and make the effort. It is a tax vampire.

Decorum in society comes from people respecting other people's choices without interfering and knowing the only way of showing people a way is by setting a quiet, unglamorous example.

When you think you have a divine right to success, you quit working at it.
When you aren't sure about it, but sure the heck want it, you work at it.

The first is doomed to failure the second is very likely to succeed.

The old testament bible bans the use of interest borrowed money, one of the primary mechanisms of the modern world economy.
It also supports slavery, selling your daughters into slavery, stoning a young bride to death if she is not found to be a virgin, etc.

Its a pretty sick prescription. Its barbaric.
I realize the bible was written in barbaric times, but that is no excuse for trying to force us into barbaric ways in this day and age.

Certainty leads to carelessness.
.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackJackal
 


Explanation: S&F!

Personal Disclosure:
So ancient that stars and flags didn't exist possibily as I had to flag and star the entire freaking awesome thread regardless, just to make it look pretty for everybody's enjoyment!


P.S. OL is quite proud to necro this thread [ I was looking for Market Value stuff in the Boneyard
] and Bump it for Justice! Hail Achlys

edit on 25-1-2011 by OmegaLogos because: Edited a chat emoticon into a post emoticon... sigh




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
At one time I was a close party to a landowner. One day, the city decided to attempt to simply seize the property. A scrawled letter was rec'd., saying that there was a party about your land (two weeks past) and you'd better show up on account that we wish to seize it. It was serious balls on their behalf, as even the notice was sent out 2 weeks later than the 'meeting'. Real hack work. Illinois.


Soon after this attempt was made to steal the property, our state legislature passed a new bill which rescinded some of these eminent domain powers, or at least procedures, so they backed off. The party must have known about this bill and had a hurried deadline, and they bored holes into, and preyed upon, the land holder's conscience, since it was a 'closed factory', as to try to instill guilt. It was crooked, inside stuff, but the result's the same: they can make anyone lose, just like that, with paltry compensation, and they can saddle you with huge penalties for the most unheard of, trivial things. The fun never stops.


It's not always simple to tell what the views of the FF were. Some of these guys were quite opposite what you would conclude, based on a cliffnote approach to the body of their writings.
edit on 25-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
News bulletin for you, slank, us "social conservatives" and our values in regard to this particular topic is clearly outlined in BlackJackal's opening volley.
I assure you, this verdict is not in line with the "Barbarian edicts" founded 2,000 years ago. You lack of knowledge on that point will hopefully come back to embarrass you one day. I say hopefully, because at least you will have the information then to know you spoke in ignorance today.

This nation was built on those "edicts" and any cursory and independant study would led you to this undeniable fact. Any study of today's chicanery, by the USSC as well as the rest of the government, makes it clear that they are intentionally straying from how things ought to be.

The problems with the social conservatives is that they will blame the liberals for all the missteps, and not see that those who speak to them with one side of their mouths will speak against them from the other side of thier mouths when behind closed doors.


I can't wait till the last social "conservative"(P.S telling other people what to do at the point of a gun[look up what Jesus said about those who live by the sword in reference to Peter chopping off a Roman soldiers ear, heretic] and acting in a self-righteous manner isn't conservative, meaning you social conservatives are like social drinkers, your only conservative to fool real conservatives) has been kicked from the Republican party.

The only thing you Social Conservatives have brought to America is organized crime, a brutal prison system that replicates Sodom and Gomorrah down to the detail of mass rape(Sodomy used to mean something akin to serial rapist type stuff). A Juvenile system where over 20% of males in the system have been sexually violated.

Social Conservatives along with their Neoconservative masters even resurrected slavery and debtor prisons in America! They are dangerous left-wing political ideologies better suited to the lunacies of the Democratic Party.

And yet they have the gall to act like everything they do is right as daisy's with such a pompous, arrogant and often a dumbfounded ignorance of reality,the pain and suffering they cause. I can understand Progressives and Marxist's, they want to crash the system. But Social Conservatives honestly think the garbage they have been hawking is actually good?

Marxist's in Congress probably secretly squeal with joy every-time a Social Conservative comes up with an idea because it helps out the Marxist's even more in the long run.
edit on 14-2-2011 by korathin because: Forgot to add "isn't conservative" and the bit about Social Conservatives only pretending to be Conservatives



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by starless and bible black
At one time I was a close party to a landowner. One day, the city decided to attempt to simply seize the property. A scrawled letter was rec'd., saying that there was a party about your land (two weeks past) and you'd better show up on account that we wish to seize it. It was serious balls on their behalf, as even the notice was sent out 2 weeks later than the 'meeting'. Real hack work. Illinois.


Soon after this attempt was made to steal the property, our state legislature passed a new bill which rescinded some of these eminent domain powers, or at least procedures, so they backed off. The party must have known about this bill and had a hurried deadline, and they bored holes into, and preyed upon, the land holder's conscience, since it was a 'closed factory', as to try to instill guilt. It was crooked, inside stuff, but the result's the same: they can make anyone lose, just like that, with paltry compensation, and they can saddle you with huge penalties for the most unheard of, trivial things. The fun never stops.


It's not always simple to tell what the views of the FF were. Some of these guys were quite opposite what you would conclude, based on a cliffnote approach to the body of their writings.
edit on 25-1-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)


That isn't as bad as what the former city government of Lansford PA did to my Dad. He owned a used tire shop(and a tire/metal-general disposal business) he ran out of an old Victorian theater(that place was a major fire hazard before he bought it, probably spent hundreds of hours fixing and reworking the electrical system to make it safe). For awhile the Greek Orthodox Church across the street had been trying to get him to sell the land to him dirt cheap for parking. Luckily he had a relative that worked at in the State Polices Fire Code enforcement department(or something like that), so if they tried the eminent domain route they would of had a city wide inspection on their hands. So that kept the peace for awhile.

Then Pennsylvania enacted new environmental regulation in regards to tire disposal. A state legislator even commended my dad while they where talking about implementing the law. But the end result of the law was those that cheated and dumped tires in quarries and along the side of the road where the only ones who could afford the red tape fees, shutting down environmentally conscious businesses.

Well a few months later the Police Chief, Mayor and Fire Chief conducted an illegal inspection of the roof and said "The roof is going to come down any day now"(I have been on that roof myself and it was solid). Three day's later on Friday the 13th the roof caved in. The roof didn't just fall apart, it did a perfect "V" cave in.

A building engineer from Wilksbarre,PA was sent to inspect the building, and said the second floor was toast, but the first floor was safe because the walls where very strong. The Mayor at the time ignored the building engineer and had part of the building torn down to street level(making it unrepairable).

Even with part of the building torn down to street level the rest of the first floor was so solid we where able to go inside and remove valuables safely. Shortly afterward the Church across the street suggested that my dad "donate" the building to their Church.

Well to make a long story short we got the last laugh. My dad held out, forcing the city to pay the clean-up cost, then when said Mayor was voted out he handed the property over to the City(also to ensure no liability with said massive bill) and I think it is still an empty lot or a park or something. But I know the Church didn't get their grubby hands on it.

The thing is government isn't just some big, all mighty thing. It is merely an institution made up by people. If the people that make up an institution are corrupt, then the institution itself is corrupt. The more power an institution has means the more power it has to act, for good or evil.




top topics



 
1

log in

join