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.

 

POLITICS: Supreme Court refuses to revisit eminent domain case

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
As expected, the US Supreme Court refused without comment to review a case involving the goverment's ability to take away a person's property for economical reasons.
Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court ruled that economic development project (office buidings) in New London, Conn. could take peoples land who had in some cases lived there their entire lives.
 



www.forbes.com
The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.
So contentious was the court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the so-called eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


How can our courts uphold a law that will the goverment to basicaly "steal" a person's home and lands to build an office building? What ever happened to the "American Dream"? This just goes to show that "We the People" is no longer a valid phrase here in the US.

Related News Links:
www.kare11.com
www.cnn.com
www.fairfieldcbj.com
www.in-forum.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...'




posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
This has been around for a long time and will not go away. Generally it used to be that the Federal and State gov'ts would use it to put in highways, mass transportation, rail ways etc and people lost homes then. Now it has gotten to a point where even a local city can move you just to put in a new car dealer (just happened where I live). The policy is very far reaching and being abused for more commercial use than the original intent which was expanding the infrastructure. This is one policy that will continue on as too many politicians at all levels from local to federal stand too much to lose if they can't put up the next Walmart.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This is a sad commentary on the US today.

Its stuff like this combined with the Patriot Act 1&2, drug confiscation laws, gun registry laws, etc; that really makes me wonder about the direction this country is headed.

Its not even a Partisan problem BOTH parties support this kind of crap. We need to start voting these idiots out of office and replacing them with Libertarians, Independents, Constitutionalists,etc.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I understand your frustration but no party will reverse this policy. The intent of the policy is necessary to continue to build roads for example. What needs to happen is not a push for its elimination but for its revision.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The problem does not lie with the goverment taking land in order to build roads or train tracks. The problem lies in that now the goverment can, and will, take your land for the next Walmart, the next office building, the next anything that will line the pockets and coffers of those in power.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
At the time of the ruling their were 11 states that already had laws preventing the taking of land for commerical purposes. Since then several others have started to rewrite their laws that will also prohibit the taking of land for commercial purposes. CONN is one of those states.


Connecticut Legislature Responds to Kelo
In my appearance on the Harry Browne show, we focused a lot on how to respond to the Kelo decision and what could be done to protect property rights. I urged the listeners to organize at the state and local level by putting propositions on state ballots to require that eminent domain be invoked only for direct public use and making sure that local politicians knew that there are political consequences for violating property rights. It looks like the Connecticut legislature if jumping on that bandwagon, declaring a moratorium on such development projects while they rewrite the state law regarding eminent domain. Bravo to that state and their legislature, which has recently become the first state to pass civil union legislation and is doing the right thing on this issue too.
www.stcynic.com...


The states have the power so you cannot blame it all on the Supreme Court, perhaps that is the reason they ruled the way they did, knowing that states could and had prevented it since it is within their power to do so.

[edit on 8/22/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Shots,
correct, there are now 25 states that are working on similar laws.
The problem that I see though is that it has been recently been demonstrated that Federal Laws will trump and overturn a local or state law.
Case in point the recent ruling on marijuana use in states like Cal. and Oregon.
The Supreme Court used an Act that was to address inter-state and inter-national trafficing to over-rule Cal. and other states laws allowing for the use of marijuana for personal use / medical treatment.
What is to say that the Supreme Court / Federal Goverment will not use that presidence to overturn local state laws "protecting" personal land?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Never happen Ken, at least I do not think so. There already were federal laws in place prior to the that ruling that is what allowed them to do what they did. That is not the case here. You are comparing apples to organges as I see it. Alabama just signed the toughest law in the land on the third and more are coming.

governorpress.alabama.gov...



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
agree and then disagree. the law that was used by the supreme court had absolutely nothing to do with the state laws. In fact the justices were trying to say that the mere possession of MJ could affect interstate economics (go figure).
www.nationalreview.com...

If when the federal goverment see that it is "better" for the country for ACME INC from China (example) to use the land that you live on for their parking lots, then the Supreme Court ruling would not only support the 'theft" of your land but it would also trump your rights. All in the name of the almighty dollar.
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court as well as a number of issues that have come up from the Executive branch calls into question the actual rights that an American can now depend on.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court as well as a number of issues that have come up from the Executive branch calls into question the actual rights that an American can now depend on.


No not really since the US government always had the power to prohibit the use of drugs. That is not the case here.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
the supreme court did not use that to substaniate their ruling. They based their ruling off of interstate commerce laws not a law governing drugs. If they did, then the ruling would not have been criticized so much.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

the supreme court did not use that to substaniate their ruling. They based their ruling off of interstate commerce laws not a law governing drugs. If they did, then the ruling would not have been criticized so much.


I understand your point, but you appear to be missing mine. At this time there are no existing federal laws on eminent domain other then the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

States have always been allowed to strengthen a federal law but they can never weaken one as was the case in your example.

Here and Op/ed by vahall that explains it far better then I ever could

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 8/22/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Ok, let take a look at just what the Supreme Court has done with their earlier ruling. The case involved was the state using the Emminent Domain clause to obtain land for an office complex. In accordance with Federal Law and the 5th Admendment, the could not use emminent domain to take away the land. As per the 5th Admendment, emminent domain can only be used for obtaining land for public use not private.
Since now the interpetation of for "public use" now includes the economic benefits for the state, then my scenario of Acme Inc. from China is not a far stretch of the imagination.


Explicit in the just compensation clause is the requirement that the taking of private property be for a public use; the Court has long accepted the principle that one is deprived of his property in violation of this guarantee if a State takes the property for any reason other than a public use.


FindLaw



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Here as added in my edit that crossed with your post at the same time

Vahall explains it all very well in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I know that thread it is a good one!

Thing is though, who is the higher court? As has been defined recently in our court Systems, The only higher authority above the Federal Supreme Court is the Senate / President.
As per my earlier arguments, the Federal Coourt has proven that it does have the right to over-rule a state law that does not agree with it's federal stance.

Thus, back to what I was saying, since there is now a precidence set that rules a states right of emminent domain can now interpet public use to include economic gain, what is to stop the federal supreme court over ruling an individual state's laws protecting private property? If the economic gain is =for the federal goverment then yes, it can and will use the emminent domain laws to take away private property.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

I know that thread it is a good one!
Thing is though, who is the higher court? As has been defined recently in our court Systems, The only higher authority above the Federal Supreme Court is the Senate / President.


I realize that and earlier I should have pointed out even the senate or portions of it are already considering new laws at the federal level in an effort to stop what happened.

The SC opened a lot of eyes and what many saw, they were not happy with.

Keep in mind several states have already corrected the problem and more are on the way. The federal level is also working on this very issue, therefore I do not fear this is a precident setting issue. The federal government always could and will have the ability to take land for public use i.e ferderal parks or Hwys; however when it comes to private development that is left to the state level which federal law at this time does not cover.



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Examples of just how quickly legislators are taking advantage of the Supreme Courts rulling



Small businesses are being seized for more upscale businesses. Hours after the decision, officials in Freeport, Texas, began legal filings to seize two family-owned seafood companies to make way for an $8 million private boat marina.
In three Missouri towns�as well as other cities across the country�homes are already being taken for shopping malls. On July 12, 2005, Sunset Hills, Mo., voted to allow the condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses to make way for a $165 million shopping center and office complex. The City of Arnold plans to take 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) post, for a Lowe�s and a strip mall. And in late July a Missouri judge reluctantly condemned a home in an upscale St. Louis neighborhood to be replaced with a shopping center. Basing his decision on Missouri law and the Kelo decision, the judge lamented: �The United States Supreme Court has denied the Alamo reinforcements. � Perhaps the people will clip the wings of eminent domain in Missouri, but today in Missouri it soars and devours.�

Homes are also being taken for nicer homes. In Long Branch, N.J., officials are poised to use eminent domain to take the oceanfront homes of residents who stand in the way of new luxury condos.


How long until your home or buisness is taken away for the almighyty dollar?


Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider Eminent Domain Ruling



posted on Aug, 23 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
So a few slipped thru the cracks that does not mean it will continue. Their governor issued an excutive order to examine and reccommend possible changes just like other states are doing.


www.mo.gov...


Proposed Federal Legislation

The ferderal law alone would put a stop to it then you take into consideration that over two dozen new states inlcuding some cities are also working on new laws to prevent this from happening. That brings the total to 38 states as I recall so that only leaves 12 left and I am willing to bet the other 12 are also working on new laws


[edit on 8/23/2005 by shots]

[edit on 8/23/2005 by shots]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Here is the lastest update to this story:
Testifying before a joint Oklahoma state house/senate task force, American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman stated that:



“By holding that the U.S. Constitution does not forbid the use of eminent domain to take private property and give it to another party for its own private economic gain, the Supreme Court has essentially put all of our property up to the highest bidder,” Stallman told the senators.

Agricultural lands, especially those in expanding urban areas, provide a ready source for potential shopping malls, industrial parks and housing complexes. Condemnation of this land also results in farmland that has been in a family for several generations simply being taken away, Stallman said.


American FB President Testifies on Eminent Domain




top topics



 
1

log in

join