[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
That's just it, aldo.  There are no campaign contributors to blame on this, just 5 unelected and unaccountable Judges who think this is a good thing.

I mean even Sandra Day O'Connor came down on my side of this, that alone should tell how whacko those 5 really are.

And you think super-global-buildo-company isn't interested in free and easy access to prime city-centre real estate?  They'll be the first to abus...sorry, take advantage of this.  A few hundred thousand dollars into the campaign funds of the relevant politicians, and bobs your uncle.  That's what I mean.

Same as...for example, that watered down environment report for the G8 summit; guy responsible, IIRC, received nice big amounts of money from various oil companies with a vested interest.  And there's more - on both sides of the political spectrum - system looks crooked as a 3p piece from over here.

It's pretty ****ed up, granted.  Albeit I wouldn't use it as a basis for a politically appointed judiciary, due to the inherent risk of bias within the system that would pose.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
If you'd bothered to read the article and the thread you'd know what "flavour of crap" they used to justify the decision. The right to take the land is there, it's in the fifth amendment, this is just a clever interpretation and application of it. The only way to change it is to limit the scope of the amendment - which as I pointed out earlier has a lower chance than hell freezing over of ever happening.

If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, instead of skimming it and posting a knee jerk reaction, you'd notice that not only did I reference the article, I also provided an answer to your previous post.

As Swamp_Thing said, eminent domain should only be used in extreme cases where the public good far outweighs the individual's claim to that particular piece of land.  But redistricting property willy-nilly just because some developer wants it is a horrible abuse of power.

[pyro-manic]

Isn't the judiciary politically appointed anyway? Wasn't there a big stink about some of Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court last year? Something like that anyway...

As for this, it's disgusting. I mean, we have a compulsory purchase system here, but the govamint pays well over the odds for the land, and it only happens rarely...

[.::Tin Can::.]

I find it Ironic. The 5 people who voted "for" were Democrats, and I thought that the Democratic stance was for "the little guy". So basically, now these 5 have gone from "being for the little guy" to allowing the bigger powers to sieze control.

Total bull****.

[Liberator]

The only thing recent Dems have been for is an increase in their power base and that means an increase in the size of Government, hell the Dems should be falling down at Bush's feet.  He's grown government more in 5 years than Bubba did throughout both his terms...

[Bobboau]

/*for those kneejerky amung you Lib just critisized Bush*/

this is weird, prety much everyone actualy agrees on this subject.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Goober5000
If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, instead of skimming it and posting a knee jerk reaction, you'd notice that not only did I reference the article, I also provided an answer to your previous post.

As Swamp_Thing said, eminent domain should only be used in extreme cases where the public good far outweighs the individual's claim to that particular piece of land.  But redistricting property willy-nilly just because some developer wants it is a horrible abuse of power.

I did read what you wrote.

The fifth amendment gives the government the right to take whatever "private" property they want so long as they suitably compensate the owner and are reclaiming the land for "public use". In other words, the concept of "private property" was and has been moreorless out the window before this ruling was even made.

The difference now is that "public use" not only encompasses things like roads, schools hospitals etc but now also tax revenue from private development. Swamp_Things assessment is flawed because it fails to take that into account. The law no longer sees this as being entirely for private gain anymore.

The problem lies in this:

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

It doesn't specify what constitutes "public use". Now, you can't expect them to list everything it entails within the constitution so instead you have to rely on the institutions like the courts to make the interpretations. In this case, the ruling didn't go the way the people wanted it to. Tough ****. Deal with it.

[Black Wolf]

Tell 'em they're dreamin'

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
In this case, the ruling didn't go the way the people wanted it to. Tough ****. Deal with it.

I'll remind of this line when they come and take the house you spent the greater part of you're life building and raising children to make it a strip mall with a KB Toys and a Bed, Bath & Beyond.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Liberator


I'll remind of this line when they come and take the house you spent the greater part of you're life building and raising children to make it a strip mall with a KB Toys and a Bed, Bath & Beyond.

Never happen. Look at his location.

[phatosealpha]

This seems like something that shouldn't really need an amendment, just an appropriate law.  The 5th amendment doesn't seem to say anything about congress not being able to pass a law to say the government can't do this.

[Ford Prefect]

Every time you use a triple negative, god kills a baby.

[achtung]

It's almost like our government has become a racecar totally controled by it's sponsors.

[FireCrack]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Every time you use a triple negative, god kills a baby.

quoted for truth

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Every time you use a triple negative, god kills a baby.

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
It doesn't specify what constitutes "public use". Now, you can't expect them to list everything it entails within the constitution so instead you have to rely on the institutions like the courts to make the interpretations. In this case, the ruling didn't go the way the people wanted it to. Tough ****. Deal with it.

I am appalled by this. It will come up again in court. It's only a matter of time, like copyright. This loophole needs to be plugged.

I don't think many of those justices were appointed by democrats, but it doesn't matter. They can just lie. Once they're on the bench, they can do whatever they want. They're there for life.

[Mefustae]

It's times like this that i'm glad i'm an Australian, nothing like that could happen here. Sure, we can steal an entire Generation of Children from their natural parents, but there's no way we'd allow our land to be taken away without just cause...

Originally posted by Black Wolf
Tell 'em they're dreamin'

A perfect (and distinctly Aussie) reference for the thread

[WMCoolmon]

Yeah, I don't think this trend of appeasing big businesses is party exclusive.

I may be arsed to write to a congress(wo)man about this, amazingly enough.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
So what you're saying is that it's perfectly fine for the government to hand you a check and say "Get off your property."

Here's the text of the fifth, btw:
 

Havn't you heard, its a living breathing document

Sigh, They have no right to do this, honestly. To be frank, if the developer wants the land then he should have to pay the individual that own the property. And they should be able to price gouge him[the developer] if they please. This, honestly is less about public use, and more about the propert owners getting royally ****ed in the ass. And to be even more frank, this is about the developer getting the land for cheaper than he would have gotten it other wise.

Additionally, people call us conservatives loonee for distusting the size and power of the gov't. Well this is a case in point.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Isn't the judiciary politically appointed anyway? Wasn't there a big stink about some of Bush's nominations for the Supreme Court last year? Something like that anyway...

As for this, it's disgusting. I mean, we have a compulsory purchase system here, but the govamint pays well over the odds for the land, and it only happens rarely...

Actually they do not always pay over market price of land. And they often pay less. When I lived in Pennsylvania, the local township used the emminent domain to sieze part of my parents land. When they paid my parents they used a means to calculate it that was completely different than the mean to calculate property taxes. In other words they skirted my parents. **** Emminent Domain.

[WMCoolmon]

I really wish people would drop the judgements about "conservatives" and "liberals". I probably do do it myself, having spent so much time around people who do, but it just seems absurd to say "liberals are bad" or "conservatives are bad". They seem to balance each other out - if you have an all-conservative government, you end up with a stagnant government. If you have an all-liberal government, you end up with an unstable government.

That side note out the door, I agree that more than likely people won't be "justly compensated" for things. After all, there are so many things about a house that you can't really put a price on, and there are *always* further considerations due to location or different laws that might apply or the trouble to move that can't really be priced (and so can't really be compensated for in exact, and I'm betting will be ignored when determining the price of the property.)

As far as actually amending the Constitution, it's a hard decision. There are some amendments people have been talking about that I don't think belong in the Constitution, and for every amendment to it, the easier future amendments will become.

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is bad enough. I think the last thing I want is for the current administration to start changing the highest law of the country.