Eminent Domain ruling

[liftshard]

The United States has now become closer to Communism than the Capitalist Republic which the Founding Fathers foresaw and established. Nikita Kruschev predicted that Communism would defeat the US from within. Was he right? Looks like it ................

You're joking, right?

The 5th Amendment does not prohibit this; nothing does.

Communism would be state control. This is BUSINESS control. Businesses control governments.

But, y'all want jobs and tax revenue and gov't services, right? Just NIMBY, huh?

It's all for the "public good," right? We have to have jobs, don't we?

 

[KGP]

Laughable

I find it ironic that the majority decision comes from the liberal side of the bench. Lliberal politicians are always beating the drum of defending the little guy, but I guess the little guy has to take a back seat when tax revenue dollars step in the way of an issue.

 

[White92]

You're joking, right?

The 5th Amendment does not prohibit this; nothing does.

Communism would be state control. This is BUSINESS control. Businesses control governments.

But, y'all want jobs and tax revenue and gov't services, right? Just NIMBY, huh?

It's all for the "public good," right? We have to have jobs, don't we?

Yes, we have to have jobs. We have to have homes too. Without the fear of being displaced at any given time just because some business wants to take over. I'd like to raise my family with some security in this crazy world. If we aren't even safe in our homes, then where are we? Thanks for protecting us government!

 

[Sig]

Re: Laughable

I find it ironic that the majority decision comes from the liberal side of the bench. Lliberal politicians are always beating the drum of defending the little guy, but I guess the little guy has to take a back seat when tax revenue dollars and step in the way of an issue.

Intereting indeed.

Reminds me of the folks who claim to be 'open-minded' but only tolerate opinions that match their own.

Whether a Liberal or a Conservative... a politician is a politician. They have much more in common than they would lead you to believe. Though judges have been the ones making news with this story, state/local CT politicians have been swarming behind the scenes on that issue for quite some time.

 

[liftshard]

Yes, we have to have jobs. We have to have homes too. Without the fear of being displaced at any given time just because some business wants to take over. I'd like to raise my family with some security in this crazy world. If we aren't even safe in our homes, then where are we? Thanks for protecting us government!

There is no constitutional right to not live in fear nor to have your home not taken by the government.

 

[NSXLNT]

"Communism would be state control. This is BUSINESS control. Businesses control governments."
In this case, business and Govt are in bed together, and the citizens are getting screwed. Oh yeah, just like Haliburton is in bed with the Dept of Defense.

"But, y'all want jobs and tax revenue and gov't services, right? Just NIMBY, huh?"
Not me. I want less govt, therefore the need for less taxes. I'm a libertarian. Govt stay out of my house, my bed and my pocket. I'm for negative population growth, therefore the need for less services, less taxes. I'm for elimination of govt sponsored welfare. Get rid of the dole, and taxes go down. Professional welfare recipients will leave eventually, and the need for taxes goes down. Less taxes means more in everyone's pocket, jobs will come naturally. Not in my backyard, not in yours, not in anyone's.

"It's all for the "public good," right? We have to have jobs, don't we?"
Yes we have to have jobs. And yes, we have to have some Govt services, therefore some taxes. But the money you and I earn should not be taken from us to serve private interests and fill the pocketbooks of the greedy at the expense of the citizens who are supposed to be protected by the govt, not raped. There is no public good served when any member of the public is made to suffer unjustly.

 

[White92]

There is no constitutional right to not live in fear nor to have your home not taken by the government.

I know it's not a right, but I'd like to think that if I'm doing everything I'm asked to as a citizen that I could just be left alone, live in peace and raise my family. I don't like that the government thinks of my house and land as something that they can take at any moment. My house is my home where I make memories. You can't just kick it to the curb and go buy another if someone else wants to be where you are more.

 

[NSXLNT]

There is no constitutional right to not live in fear nor to have your home not taken by the government.

I seem to remember that the federal govt was established for the common protection of the citizens of the newly formed united states. I may be wrong, however, since I am not the expert on the Constitution that liftshard is
I also seem to remember that somewhere in the Constitution it says something to the effect of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I may be wrong there, also. But it seems to me that these citizens who had their homes taken from them have been denied some of the happiness that they and their families have worked hard for generations to pursue.

 

[liftshard]

I seem to remember that the federal govt was established for the common protection of the citizens of the newly formed united states. I may be wrong, however, since I am not the expert on the Constitution that liftshard is
I also seem to remember that somewhere in the Constitution it says something to the effect of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I may be wrong there, also. But it seems to me that these citizens who had their homes taken from them have been denied some of the happiness that they and their families have worked hard for generations to pursue.

The 5th Amendment protects your right to not be deprived of life, liberty, and property without DUE PROCESS.

In this case, due process was afforded the citizens in question.

I know it's not a right, but I'd like to think that if I'm doing everything I'm asked to as a citizen that I could just be left alone, live in peace and raise my family. I don't like that the government thinks of my house and land as something that they can take at any moment. My house is my home where I make memories. You can't just kick it to the curb and go buy another if someone else wants to be where you are more.

Well, I know what you'd like to think. And what you'd like to think isn't what reality is. If you want a different government, vote outside the major party line. Waste your vote. If enough people wasted their votes, they wouldn't be wasted.

In this case, business and Govt are in bed together, and the citizens are getting screwed. Oh yeah, just like Haliburton is in bed with the Dept of Defense.

Oh, the old Halliburton crap. In many cases, they are the only company capable of delivering the services. And, they employ thousands of americans.

Not me. I want less govt, therefore the need for less taxes. I'm a libertarian. Govt stay out of my house, my bed and my pocket. I'm for negative population growth, therefore the need for less services, less taxes

If you are for negative population growth, then you are for a decrease in standard of living. Industrial economics is functionally a ponzi scheme. Without people being born with nothing, there is no upward mobility across generations or life. We need exponential growth to support the model.

and I earn should not be taken from us to serve private interests and fill the pocketbooks of the greedy at the expense of the citizens who are supposed to be protected by the govt, not raped. There is no public good served when any member of the public is made to suffer unjustly

Uh...these Targets will employ lots of people. They will benefit in lieu of a few stingy homeowners with far more wealth who wanted to squat on useful land. We used to kick Injuns off the same type of land. Mexicans, the Spanish, the French, whoever. We put it to use.

 

[White92]

Uh...these Targets will employ lots of people. They will benefit in lieu of a few stingy homeowners with far more wealth who wanted to squat on useful land. We used to kick Injuns off the same type of land. Mexicans, the Spanish, the French, whoever. We put it to use.

I'll leave the political incorrectness of your statement to somebody else who may want to stray off topic for a moment. "Injuns"?! Sheesh!

As far as using the land goes.... just because someone is using the land to live and raise a family does not mean they aren't "using" it. "Using" land does not mean making money on it. All land is not zoned commercial. Alot of land is zoned for residential.

 

[nsxtasy]

I also seem to remember that somewhere in the Constitution it says something to the effect of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I may be wrong there, also.

You are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The latter document included the statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[NSXLNT]

The 5th Amendment protects your right to not be deprived of life, liberty, and property without DUE PROCESS.

"In this case, due process was afforded the citizens in question."

"Oh, the old Halliburton crap. In many cases, they are the only company capable of delivering the services. And, they employ thousands of americans."

"If you are for negative population growth, then you are for a decrease in standard of living. Industrial economics is functionally a ponzi scheme. Without people being born with nothing, there is no upward mobility across generations or life. We need exponential growth to support the model."

"Uh...these Targets will employ lots of people. They will benefit in lieu of a few stingy homeowners with far more wealth who wanted to squat on useful land. We used to kick Injuns off the same type of land. Mexicans, the Spanish, the French, whoever. We put it to use.

"

Due process under the law may have been served, but the resulting decision is both unethical and immoral.

The services being delivered by Haliburton wouldn't be necessary if the Dept. of Defense hadn't delivered destruction. I can see it now: "General, we need more profits. Go blow up a country, and we'll come in and rebuild, all at the expense of the American Suckers, oops, I mean taxpayers. They'll gladly sacrifice their sons and daughters so we can increase our bottom line".


Cleaner water and air, less pollution, less traffic, more open spaces, a greater abundance of natural resources, less poverty, less crowded classrooms so children can actually learn something while teachers can actually do their jobs, less wear and tear on the existing infrastructure, no need to increase infrastructure, less need for services, less need for taxes. Seems like my standard of living would increase pretty well. I'd actually be able to work less and enjoy life more. How upwardly mobile does one really need to be? How much material does one really need to consume to be comfortable, healthy and happy? I don't need, or want, people to suffer just so I am able to acquire more. I've never been that self-centered

Dude, you are one scary human being, and I use that term loosely. First of all, these people were not squaters. They and their families have owned and paid taxes on these properties for generations. The land was useful to them, it was their home, their lives and dreams and memories.
I won't even comment on the rest of your statement.
I'm done with this discussion. I hope I got some of you to think more compassionately.

 

[NSXLNT]

You are confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The latter document included the statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Ken, thanks for clearing that up for me. :smile:

 

[MJK]

I am livid about this, but fortunately I seem not to be the only one.

Hotel Lost Liberty (Linky)

 

[liftshard]

I'll leave the political incorrectness of your statement to somebody else who may want to stray off topic for a moment. "Injuns"?! Sheesh!

As far as using the land goes.... just because someone is using the land to live and raise a family does not mean they aren't "using" it. "Using" land does not mean making money on it. All land is not zoned commercial. Alot of land is zoned for residential.

The Injuns' land was "zoned residential" before we showed up.

Due process under the law may have been served, but the resulting decision is both unethical and immoral.

WTF does "morality" as defined by you have to do with the Constitution or law??

The services being delivered by Haliburton wouldn't be necessary if the Dept. of Defense hadn't delivered destruction. I can see it now: "General, we need more profits. Go blow up a country, and we'll come in and rebuild, all at the expense of the American Suckers, oops, I mean taxpayers. They'll gladly sacrifice their sons and daughters so we can increase our bottom line".

This type of "reasoning" is insanity. It's nonsense. The War Industry benefits many Americans, including you.

Cleaner water and air, less pollution, less traffic, more open spaces, a greater abundance of natural resources, less poverty, less crowded classrooms so children can actually learn something while teachers can actually do their jobs, less wear and tear on the existing infrastructure, no need to increase infrastructure, less need for services, less need for taxes. Seems like my standard of living would increase pretty well. I'd actually be able to work less and enjoy life more. How upwardly mobile does one really need to be? How much material does one really need to consume to be comfortable, healthy and happy? I don't need, or want, people to suffer just so I am able to acquire more. I've never been that self-centered

Do you or do you NOT own a RIDICULOUSLY expensive and comparatively wasteful exotic car!??!? I know I do. So, I don't talk self-delusional nonsense about standards of living. Our use of land and industrial economy have ENABLED you to have this little toy we all call a car.

Dude, you are one scary human being, and I use that term loosely. First of all, these people were not squaters. They and their families have owned and paid taxes on these properties for generations. The land was useful to them, it was their home, their lives and dreams and memories.
I won't even comment on the rest of your statement.
I'm done with this discussion. I hope I got some of you to think more compassionately.

I hope at some point you get real. Look at your ride and realize that you're rich like this because of aggressive, pro-business policies. Want an agrarian society? They're out there. Go live in one and eke out a subsistence lifestyle. Those people don't have exotic sports cars.

These people's lives and dreams had to be sacrificed for the greater WEALTH so that we all can have nice, cushy lives in big houses with flashy, fast cars.

If you want to be compassionate, sell your damned exorbitantly expensive flashy, exotic car, and give the proceeds to people in the 3rd world. 1/2 the world survives on $2/day.

 

[Patdeisa]

"

Due process under the law may have been served, but the resulting decision is both unethical and immoral.

I think NSXLNT is on a roll. I belive the decision is wrong because it's not purely public use. Upon reading more on the case and its implications, I find it more and more sad. There's no guarentee that new jobs will come or the tax base to increase. They're buying people out of their homes to build newer and more expensive ones. It's the first time that the public use and private use line is blurred (or eliminated), which is discomforting. However, maybe some new legislation might come up and prevent disproportionate power from prevailing again.

 

[paladin]

somehow it seems fitting that this happens right after that same ruling
http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

 

[White92]

somehow it seems fitting that this happens right after that same ruling
http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

haha! Let's see if this really happens.

 

[KGP]

somehow it seems fitting that this happens right after that same ruling
http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

Well, it's funny - and serves him right as far as I'm concerned. However, the sad thing is - I suspect there are, or will soon be, many similar letters sent by developers to municipal officials. Their ruling opened up a huge can of worms.

 

[heySkippy]

I think we will soon see a raft of new state laws prohibiting or limiting the extent of eminent domain takings. These things aren't popular and laws limiting uses will be popular.

 

[nsxtasy]

I find it ironic that the majority decision comes from the liberal side of the bench. Lliberal politicians are always beating the drum of defending the little guy, but I guess the little guy has to take a back seat when tax revenue dollars step in the way of an issue.

Oh come on, Gene. I know you intend the word "liberal" as an insult, but it is no such thing. In fact, I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have lost their meaning nowadays, when the supposedly "liberal" party stands for balanced budgets and the supposedly "conservative" party passes an expensive subsidized prescription drug plan. At least libertarianism is consistent in its message of smaller government, taking some elements from the so-called "conservative" dogma (lower taxes, fewer government programs) and others from the so-called "liberal" side (no proscription of medical procedures, fewer police powers and greater civil liberties). Give libertarians credit for showing that the oversimplistic terms "conservative" and "liberal" are outmoded.

 

[KGP]

Oh come on, Gene...

Your opinions and comments are personally noted and respected. However, no, the term was not used as an insult. Simply used it because the majority of the deciding justices are those who are comonly known for leaning to the left in their rulings. :wink:

 

[nsxtasy]

I hope

There was an excellent op-ed piece in Sunday's New York Times by Stephen L. Carter, about the debate over the next Supreme Court justice. Here is the salient paragraph relevant to your claim (which boils down to the fact that you want a new justice who votes the way you want him/her to):

"We all claim to believe in judicial independence, but our definition of independence too often turns out to mean deciding cases according to our druthers. A court that rules in our favor displays integrity and independence. A court that rules against us shows its ideology and partisanship. Need evidence? Listen to anyone on the right discuss classroom prayer or abortion. Listen to anyone on the left discuss Bush v. Gore."

 

[Jett]

Would you prefer a justice who holds the opposite viewpoint of yours? I would settle for one who just follows the law instead of redefining what the words mean to suit their purpose. This was a horrible ruling...

 

[nsxtasy]

Would you prefer a justice who holds the opposite viewpoint of yours?

That's exactly my point. You care ONLY about whether a justice holds the same viewpoint as you - and not whether he/she follows the law and applies it as appropriate in each individual case.