Amid all the noise, a very, very bad precedent

[Relbeek Einre]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... property_2

Basically, the Supremes ruled that it's perfectly Constitution for governments to use eminent domain to seize property and then use it for private development.

Yes, those seized receive compensation. But the inherent wrongness of it, plus the insane levels of potential for abuse, should scare people.

[Trollbait]

Relbeek so casually left off the fact that it was the leftists and democrats on the SC that ruled this way.

Democrats for the common man? I think not.

[Harlowe]

That absolutely blows.

[Croinc]

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

/GASP

[Harlowe]

They know best what property owners should be doing with their property ...raging assholes.

I don't give a crap what "economic" benefit they see. It's not theirs to take.

Gives us your money (tax the crap out of us) and your land ...we know what best to do with it for the betterment of all!!

Bull-effing-shit.

[Croinc]

They know best what property owners should be doing with their property ...raging assholes.

I don't give a crap what "economic" benefit they see. It's not theirs to take.

Gives us your money (tax the crap out of us) and your land ...we know what best to do with it for the betterment of all!!

Bull-effing-shit.

It worked out great for the Native Americans, yo.

[Arathena]

Nothing like starting concurrent threads in the same timeframe, whee.

So, where does the line of 'sorry, remember that whole founding the country on the idea of individual rights' come back into play?

[Syeni Soulslasher MK6]

So, where does the line of 'sorry, remember that whole founding the country on the idea of individual rights' come back into play?

Only those who can aford to pay for rights.

[Dlaet]

HAHA! This is AWESOME (in the words of Chris Farley)! Greatest Supreme Court decision ever.

Sucks to not be involved development, huh?

[Partha]

Relbeek so casually left off the fact that it was the leftists and democrats on the SC that ruled this way.

Three of the five voting for were Republican nominees.

Ah, revisionist history.

[Relbeek Einre]

I don't give a FUCK who on the SC voted for it. It's an abomination.

[Relbeek Einre]

(That is, whether they're Democrat or republican.)

[Partha]

It's what you get. Republicans have been appointing judges for 18 of the last 26 years. They rate economic issues over civil rights routinely. So why are you surprised when they actually do what Republicans think?

[Embar Angylwrath]

The decision is crap. The SC got it wrong, and it flies in the face of long-standing policies on property rights.

This decision allows any government to take land using whatever justification they want.

[Ddrak]

Not true, Embar.

The decision effectively holds that the USSC has no business telling the state and local governments what they can and cannot do with respect to property rights. If you read the constitution they were correct in that decision and to do anything else would most definitely be legislating from the bench.

It's pretty obvious the federal government cannot sieze land for private purposes (not mentioned in the constitution therefore the 10th amendment holds). The absence of rigidly defined property rights simply means it's a state decision on what can and can't be done. Now, if you are a true conservative you'll argue that the USSC made the correct decision and lobby for either a constitution change to allow more federalism to take hold or lobby for the states to change THEIR constitutions to rigidly define property rights.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Not true, Embar.

The decision effectively holds that the USSC has no business telling the state and local governments what they can and cannot do with respect to property rights. If you read the constitution they were correct in that decision and to do anything else would most definitely be legislating from the bench.

It's pretty obvious the federal government cannot sieze land for private purposes (not mentioned in the constitution therefore the 10th amendment holds). The absence of rigidly defined property rights simply means it's a state decision on what can and can't be done. Now, if you are a true conservative you'll argue that the USSC made the correct decision and lobby for either a constitution change to allow more federalism to take hold or lobby for the states to change THEIR constitutions to rigidly define property rights.

Dd

I think your interpretation is off. The federal government has weighed in on these issues before, and there is long-standing case law that illustrates why the Federal government has jurisdiction in this area. Its related to the due process elements of the 14th Amendment.

[Chants Evensong]

The Gonzales v. Raich [medical marijuana] and Kelko v. City of New London [eminent domain case] demonstrate a trend in favor of a bigger, more powerful government.

The Raich case asked whether the Controlled Substances Act was a constitutional use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Raich, a user of medical marijuana who used only locally grown sources argued that applying the Act to her use was unconstitutional because it did not affect interstate commerce. Relying on a new deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, it determined that even locally grown pot can affect interstate commerce because it could influence the demand for pot already in the interstate commerce stream.

In the mid-1990's, there appeared to be a trend towards limiting the scope of the commerce clause. One case was US v. Morrison, which involved the Violence Against Women Act, and US v. Lopez, which involved the Gun Free Zone Act. Both of these acts were invalidated because they by enacting them Congress improperly used its commerce powers. The presence of guns around schools and the beating of women, deplorable as they are, were too far removed from interstate commerce for congress to regulate that conduct using the commerce clause.

Kelko v. The City of New London did not involve the commerce clasue, but eminent domain. It asked whether the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development.

New London had fallen on hard times and needed to encourage economic activity. A company was building a complex nearby. New London decided to condemn some property near the site so that some bigger commercial building could be built. They thought this was a proper use of thier eminent domain powers because it would benefit the public good in the form of generating higher tax revenues.

They essentially took from one private person and gave it to another private entity because the latter would build building that would generate more taxes for the City of New London.

This use of eminent domain for economic purposes has been going on for a long time. Kelko was not the first example of it. Michigan did it 25 years ago to benefit GM (and local tax coffers). St. Paul did it recently to build the Lawson Software behemoth. It has created wealth. It also has pissed off a lot of private property owners.

It is also important to rememeber that the property owners who's land was taken must be compensated fairly. These people do not walk away penniless. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states thatt "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." Often times, they are very generously compensated well above market value just to aviod a costly law suit and bad publicity.

Still, there is something bothersome about the involuntary nature of the transfer where it's done to benefit another private entity directly, and the public indirectly through fattened tax coffers, and, perhaps, more jobs.

Let's go back to the commerce clause and Wickard v. Filburn. At the time, America was in a depression. The Federal Government was desperate to do something about it. Among many other pieces of legislation, Congress fasses the Agriculture Adjustment Act which limited the amount of crops that could be grown, thereby increasing the price of wheat, and giving farmers some stability. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew weat for private consumption. He was told not to. He continued, arguing that his wheat did not fall under production quotas. The Supreme Court held that even though it was not part of interstate commerce, it affected national markets, thus was part of "Commerce ... among the several States."

That was a new, expansive interpretation of Congress's commerce clause powers. Without that expanded power, Congress probably could not pass much of the legislation designed to help the country out of the depression.

Whether these laws really got us out of the depression is debated still today. I think they did some good. But it also tilted the balance of power away from private citizens and the states towards the federal government. The Federal government can now control a lot of things simply because it may have an affect on interstate commerce.

What we have is a Federal government legislating in a lot of areas, growing bigger and bigger all the while, and creating programs it can't necessarily fund. So they tax more. When they can't tax more, local governments tax more. Eminent domain for economic purposes helps feed the tax coffers.

Conservatives have traditionally been against big government, arguing that it can be a dangerous thing. It shaves away at our liberties. It robs us of the fruits of our labor with oppresive taxes.

Liberals have traditionally favored bigger government. Programs for the needy are humane and may even help society econimically in the long run by reducing the oppressive toll poverty can take on otherwise productive workers. Regulating the workplace for safety may cost more money for businesses, but it is humane and having healty workers can increase productivity in the long run.

Good arguments on both sides. But I prefer smaller government. Big governments do have a way of growing bigger and bigger, less responsive, and inefficient. They also must be funded some way. Kelko v. New London is but one example of the more creative ways governments have found to fund themselves.

So if anyone is wondering why the more conservative side of Supreme Court was in the dissent in the Raich and New London, they are of a judicial philosophy that reflects a belief in a limited government. The liberal wing does not share that philosophy. But it is also important to remember that both philosophies have thier faults and merits.

That's my theory, anyway. Partha's theory is too simple minded for me to take seriously.

[Chants Evensong]

The Incorporation Doctrine holds that the Bill of Rights applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, not all of the rights do, in fact, apply. Right to indictement by a grand jury, a jury trial in civil cases, and that a jury in a criminal case consist of 12 people are the exceptions.

The Bill of RIghts are a floor. States can grant more than what is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, however.

The Court in Kelo v. New London held that the proposed disposition of Kelo's property qualifies as a "public use" as contemplated by the takings clause of the 5th Amendment.

Therefore, taking from one private citizen and giving to another for the purposes of generating more tax revenue does not violate the "floor" guarnteed by the 5th Amendment.

[Ddrak]

Full text of decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... vol=04-108


In Soviet America, priavte property siezes local government!

[Ddrak]

I stand corrected on reading the full text. Embar is correct - this decision allows the government at any level to sieze property and transfer it to any party that is willing to improve it as increased tax revenue can be considered public use.

Apologies for running down the wrong track - my non-legal opinion also makes me wonder what the SC was thinking. Essentially this decision is the very foundation of a socialist society.

Dd