Supreme Court: Homes can be seized

[TexasTiger 13,016]

But on the whole in general there is no way around the fact that  "There has never been a tax that the liberals and dems didn't want and like. There has never been a government bureaucracy that the liberals and dems didn't want to be larger and more cumbersome."

165716[/snapback]

You mean, other than that said "fact" is utterly false?

Have some seed corn to go with your straw man. You've sure spread enough fertilizer for it.

165724[/snapback]

BS, aside, if you are insinuating that libs & dems are and have been fiscally responsible and work for smaller more efficient government, back it up and provide facts.

165731[/snapback]

LOWEST GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN OVER THREE DECADES

* Federal spending as a share of the economy is the lowest since 1966. The fiscal restraint under President Clinton has brought spending down from 22.2 percent of GDP in 1992 to 18.7 percent of GDP in 1999 — the lowest since 1966. At the same time, President Clinton has increased investments that are vital for future growth, including nearly doubling education and training. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Federal government spending as a share of the economy increased from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 22.2 percent in 1992.

* Non-defense discretionary Federal spending as a share of the economy is the lowest on record. Since President Clinton took office, non-defense discretionary spending has fallen from 3.7 percent of GDP in 1992 to 3.3 percent of GDP in 1999 — the lowest as a share of the economy on record. Over this period, total discretionary spending fell from 8.6 percent of GDP to 6.3 percent of GDP, also the lowest on record. (Comparable data for these categories goes back to 1962.)

* Discretionary spending down under President Clinton and up under the previous two Administrations. Real discretionary spending has fallen by 1.1 percent per year under President Clinton; from 1980 to 1992, real discretionary spending increased 1.0 percent per year.

* Lower general government spending — as a share of GDP — than any major economy in the world. According to the OECD, the U.S. has lower total government spending — Federal, state, and local — as a share of GDP than any major economy in the world.

SMALLEST FEDERAL WORKFORCE IN 40 YEARS

* The smallest Federal civilian workforce in 40 years. The Federal civilian workforce increased from when President Reagan took office to when President Bush left office. Since President Clinton took office, the Federal workforce has been cut by 377,000 — nearly a fifth — and is now lower than any time since 1960.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/00Budget/I...nrecord.html#03

[TexasTiger 13,016]

This case is largely misunderstood. The Court didn't say it was a good thing or a bad thing, but rather within the scope of local government to determine. Accordingly, the way to address this is through citizens demanding local/state laws and ordinances that limit the governmental power to exercise imminent domain, which is actually what "states' rights" folks, federalists and traditional conservatives tend to prefer. New Haven, Connecticutt may set different parameters than Hoover, Alabama, and so on.

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

In Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area's 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair. Under the plan, the area would be condemned and part of it utilized for the construction of streets, schools, and other public facilities. The remainder of the land would be leased or sold to private parties for the purpose of redevelopment, including the construction of low-cost housing.

The owner of a department store located in the area challenged the condemnation, pointing out that his store was not itself blighted and arguing that the creation of a "better balanced, more attractive community" was not a valid public use. Id., at 31. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Douglas refused to evaluate this claim in isolation, deferring instead to the legislative and agency judgment that the area "must be planned as a whole" for the plan to be successful. Id., at 34. The Court explained that "community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis--lot by lot, building by building." Id., at 35. The public use underlying the taking was unequivocally affirmed:

"We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive... . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way." Id., at 33.

In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984), the Court considered a Hawaii statute whereby fee title was taken from lessors and transferred to lessees (for just compensation) in order to reduce the concentration of land ownership. We unanimously upheld the statute and rejected the Ninth Circuit's view that it was "a naked attempt on the part of the state of Hawaii to take the property of A and transfer it to B solely for B's private use and benefit." Id., at 235 (internal quotation marks omitted). Reaffirming Berman's deferential approach to legislative judgments in this field, we concluded that the State's purpose of eliminating the "social and economic evils of a land oligopoly" qualified as a valid public use. 467 U. S., at 241-242. Our opinion also rejected the contention that the mere fact that the State immediately transferred the properties to private individuals upon condemnation somehow diminished the public character of the taking. "t is only the taking's purpose, and not its mechanics," we explained, that matters in determining public use. Id., at 244.

In that same Term we decided another public use case that arose in a purely economic context. In Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, Co., 467 U. S. 986 (1984), the Court dealt with provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act under which the Environmental Protection Agency could consider the data (including trade secrets) submitted by a prior pesticide applicant in evaluating a subsequent application, so long as the second applicant paid just compensation for the data. We acknowledged that the "most direct beneficiaries" of these provisions were the subsequent applicants, id., at 1014, but we nevertheless upheld the statute under Berman and Midkiff. We found sufficient Congress' belief that sparing applicants the cost of time-consuming research eliminated a significant barrier to entry in the pesticide market and thereby enhanced competition. 467 U. S., at 1015.

Viewed as a whole, our jurisprudence has recognized that the needs of society have varied between different parts of the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to changed circumstances. Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the "great respect" that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in discerning local public needs. See Hairston v. Danville & Western R. Co., 208 U. S. 598, 606-607 (1908) (noting that these needs were likely to vary depending on a State's "resources, the capacity of the soil, the relative importance of industries to the general public welfare, and the long-established methods and habits of the people"). For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...00&invol=04-108

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I don't think it's a states rights issue simply because this is something that is specifically dealt with in the Constitution. This is not one of the rights enumerated to the states or the people that the Framers chose not to cover specifically. I think it was a miscarriage of justice.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

I don't think it's a states rights issue simply because this is something that is specifically dealt with in the Constitution.  This is not one of the rights enumerated to the states or the people that the Framers chose not to cover specifically.  I think it was a miscarriage of justice.

165869[/snapback]

It may have been a miscarriage of justice, but what specific clause in the Constitution do you believe was violated?

[Piglet 0]

I got a question...

Independent of the issue whether we LIKE the decision--and so far it seems me and everyone else here agree that it sucks, which is sorta a miracle, for everyone here to agree--

--did the majority justices FOLLOW THE LAW--you know, like conservatives who believe in judicial restraint say you should do? Or did they make up a new doctrine that goes AGAINST what the legislatures intended, like they did with Roe V. Wade?

Does the Fifth Amendment--"No property shall be taken for public use without just compensation" allow the court to declare this particular taking unconstitutional, even if it's otherwise consistent with state and federal law? I'd argue that it does, since giving the land to a corporation ain't PUBLIC use. They're making it aomeone else's private property. But apparently, that theory goes against all the precedents.

Maybe the majority did what it had to do. Or not. You'd think the court's 'liberal' activist wing would be all for expanding the Constitution to create more rights for the people. But evidently not here.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I don't think it's a states rights issue simply because this is something that is specifically dealt with in the Constitution.  This is not one of the rights enumerated to the states or the people that the Framers chose not to cover specifically.  I think it was a miscarriage of justice.

165869[/snapback]

It may have been a miscarriage of justice, but what specific clause in the Constitution do you believe was violated?

165871[/snapback]

The 5th Amendment. Specifically the clause below:

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

I do not believe, nor has it ever been the precident, for gov't be force people off their own property to another private individual or enterprise could use it as a profit center. Eminent domain should be (and to my knowledge, has been) invoked only in cases where things for "public use" (not public "good" or "benefit") such as roads, schools, critical infrastructure, etc are needed. These five "justices" have expanded the definition of public use so far as to almost make the clause worthless.

Now I know that if you can drum up enough support in your city council or state legislature to put tighter restrictions on this practice you can keep it from being open season on private property. But I think that the Framers saw this as important enough to put directly into the Constitution rather than leave it up to states and municipalities, which this decision flips upside down. Secondly, local authorities and citizens naturally tend to have a "NIMBY" attitude on this...as long as it isn't their property being seized, they don't mind since they'll probably shop in the new store being built and it's not right next to them. So good luck getting your neighbors a few miles away to come to your support. Truth is, they aren't going to seize the neigborhood of $500,000 homes. It's going to be lower middle class homes and below that get the boot.

[tiger88 934]

Lets see here.

1. Approval of dog searches with no justification whatsoever.

2. Approval of seizure of homes for private sector uses.

Whats next?

[TexasTiger 13,016]

I don't think it's a states rights issue simply because this is something that is specifically dealt with in the Constitution.  This is not one of the rights enumerated to the states or the people that the Framers chose not to cover specifically.  I think it was a miscarriage of justice.

165869[/snapback]

It may have been a miscarriage of justice, but what specific clause in the Constitution do you believe was violated?

165871[/snapback]

The 5th Amendment. Specifically the clause below:

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

I do not believe, nor has it ever been the precident, for gov't be force people off their own property to another private individual or enterprise could use it as a profit center. Eminent domain should be (and to my knowledge, has been) invoked only in cases where things for "public use" (not public "good" or "benefit") such as roads, schools, critical infrastructure, etc are needed. These five "justices" have expanded the definition of public use so far as to almost make the clause worthless.

Now I know that if you can drum up enough support in your city council or state legislature to put tighter restrictions on this practice you can keep it from being open season on private property. But I think that the Framers saw this as important enough to put directly into the Constitution rather than leave it up to states and municipalities, which this decision flips upside down. Secondly, local authorities and citizens naturally tend to have a "NIMBY" attitude on this...as long as it isn't their property being seized, they don't mind since they'll probably shop in the new store being built and it's not right next to them. So good luck getting your neighbors a few miles away to come to your support. Truth is, they aren't going to seize the neigborhood of $500,000 homes. It's going to be lower middle class homes and below that get the boot.

165916[/snapback]

The Court cites precedent which the majority believes they have been consistent with. But in any event, even the "original intent" crowd like Scalia and company don't believe that the Framers intended any of the Bill of Rights to apply to any government entity other than the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights began to slowly be "incorporated" into the 14th amendment after the Civil War so as to apply to states and municipalities.

The larger problem I see with this case applies to other, very different, cases, as well. Folks like Scalia will say that an individual right doesn't exist unless it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, when the cops burst into a private bedroom and found two men engaged in sodomy and arrested them, when the case made it to the Supreme Court in 1986, Chief Justice Burger said, there "is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy," as if each possible act humans might have the "right" to engage in must be enumerated. The better question is where does the state's power to dictate private behavior or take private property come from? There is no equally specific enumerated state power to do a number of things that the Court's analysis over the years has assumed. Very broad powers are assumed to exist, whether they are enumerated or not. This case, I think, highlights the danger of such assumptions.

[Auburn85 432]

whre's the outrage of taking freedom away? I figured people like Dean,Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer would be all over this....... but I guess since it wasn't bush's idea...they gottta hold back for a better fight

[Tigermike 3,053]

Hail seizers! The New York Times cheers on the land grabbers

Jacob Sullum

July 1, 2005

The New York Times welcomed the Supreme Court's recent endorsement of virtually unfettered eminent domain powers as "a setback to the 'property rights' movement." The fact that the Times not only celebrated a defeat for property rights but felt a need to put the phrase in scare quotes speaks volumes about the left-liberal misconceptions that have been brought to the fore by the Court's decision in Kelo v. New London.

According to the Court, the Fifth Amendment, which allows the government to take property "for public use" provided it pays "just compensation," is a license to transfer any parcel of land from its current owner to someone the government thinks will make better use of it.

"Under the banner of economic development," noted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent, "all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public."

In an editorial headlined "The Limits of Property Rights," the Times called this decision "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest." It said the redevelopment plan at issue in Kelo, which involves leveling the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn., to make way for a conference center, restaurants and shops, "may hurt a few small property owners," but "many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs."

The collectivist logic here is worthy of a Soviet central planner: The government decides what "the public interest" is and allocates resources accordingly, without regard to the private plans of the individuals who happen to own those resources. It's OK if people are hurt in the process, because on balance, the welfare of the group will improve.

For the Times, acting in the public interest includes reassigning property rights based on the government's determination of which owners will generate the most tax revenue and jobs. In New London, the public interest happens to coincide with that of Pfizer, which inspired the city's redevelopment plan when it decided to open a new research facility adjacent to Fort Trumbull. In New York City, the public interest happens to coincide with that of The New York Times, which used eminent domain to forcibly obtain the land on which it is building its new headquarters.

Mindful of the appearance that big corporations such as Pfizer and the New York Times Co. use eminent domain for their own ends, the Times cautioned that "eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain." But as O'Connor noted, "nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public." If the Fifth Amendment requires only that a taking provide some such benefit, she wrote, "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings."

The Times, even while mentioning its own abuse of eminent domain, conceded that O'Connor raised "a serious concern." But it called her fears "exaggerated," since "the majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan."

So, contrary to the alarming reports you may have seen, the government cannot simply force you to sell your home or business, at a price of its choosing, for the convenience of a developer, a big-box retailer or some other politically influential land grabber. It has to have a plan first. Maybe.

The nonchalance of the Times regarding eminent domain abuse is of a piece with its derogation of property rights, which it sees as inferior to so-called human rights. (Try to imagine the Times running a celebratory editorial on "The Limits of Human Rights.") Yet property rights are human rights: Your ownership of your house stems from your ownership of your body and the fruits of your labor.

In this light, all rights are property rights, without which it would be impossible to exercise, say, freedom of religion or freedom of the press. How free would The New York Times be if people could occupy its offices at will?

Then again, since the owners of the Times have implicitly identified the paper's new digs as a "public use," perhaps they wouldn't mind.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jacobsu...s20050701.shtml

[WarTim 3,457]

Much like the whole "Flag" debate, Anyone that attempts to take MY land gets a punch in the nose too! (or possibly worse!)

[Piglet 0]

Much like the whole "Flag" debate, Anyone that attempts to take MY land gets a punch in the nose too!    (or possibly worse!)

166909[/snapback]

Here's one where I'd ordinarily take your side. Unfortunately, those who'd come to take your land after this decision would likely be the ones with badges and guns. Your resistance would be about as effective as that of an indian tribe of yore.

[WarTim 3,457]

Much like the whole "Flag" debate, Anyone that attempts to take MY land gets a punch in the nose too!    (or possibly worse!)

166909[/snapback]

Here's one where I'd ordinarily take your side. Unfortunately, those who'd come to take your land after this decision would likely be the ones with badges and guns. Your resistance would be about as effective as that of an indian tribe of yore.

166974[/snapback]

I hate to beat the same old horse I have been beating for a few days, BUT, some things are worth fighting for. I do not own a gun. The founding Fathers thought it would be a good idea if we all owned a gun to be able to defend ourselves FROM the govt.

Maybe now I should purchase one.