[budster101]

I just saw the specific case and it's not new in my experience, and it's a toss up. Some neighborhoods are in serious troubles and the influx of business taxes can help them out greatly. If it is for the public good, and those who own land or homes are fairly compensated, then the good of the neighborhood is more important. People want lower property taxes, but when a Walmart moves in, they complain. When the taxes go down, they will find another thing to complain about. How's that new library btw?, or How's the addition to the public school coming along? The Firehouse? Police Station? Parks and services? Come on....

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by KevinK

You do realize it's not the right conservatives that you hate that are for this right?

They are against it .

It's the leftist liberal ones that are pushing this. You know, the ones that hate Bush, and the war on Iraq.

Now, I promised myself I would stay out of political discussions on MacNN. But you just have to know that in the European sense, there's no such thing as a liberal party in the US. You have two conservative parties that split power between them.

Enjoy.

[Warung]

Here is the key phrase:

She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

And you people are yelling "communism/socialism"?

Yep, "corruption" is the operative term here (the ultima ratio of capitalism). But keep on clinging to your libertarian views and be pwned by teh $$$.

Might_makes_right.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Hugi

But you just have to know that in the European sense, there's no such thing as a liberal party in the US. You have two conservative parties that split power between them.

No. Just because your version of liberals are more extreme, doesn't mean we do not have a "left".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

Here is the key phrase:

And you people are yelling "communism/socialism"?
:

No people are yelling the left just sold out.

Conservatives for the poor. Liberals for the wealthy elites

[Warung]

Originally Posted by KevinK

No people are yelling the left just sold out.

Conservatives for the poor. Liberals for the wealthy elites

Did that new user name come with a loaded crackpipe, or is your keyboard broken?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

Did that new user name come with a loaded crackpipe, or is your keyboard broken?

Warung I suggest you re-read this thread. It's not the Conservatives that was for this.

They riled AGAINST this. So much for the Conservatives being for big business over personal rights.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Warung I suggest you re-read this thread. It's not the Conservatives that was for this.

As if this has anything to do with conservative or liberal anymore.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

As if this has anything to do with conservative or liberal anymore.

Unless of course the conservatives do something, then it's THE EVIL RIGHT UP TO IT'S DASTARDLY DEEDS AGAIN!!11

But what do you mean "as if this has anything to do with them anymore"? Obviously it does.

One side wanted it, one side did not.

[Kevin]

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers."

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

[Warung]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Unless of course the conservatives do something, then it's THE EVIL RIGHT UP TO IT'S DASTARDLY DEEDS AGAIN!!11

LOL. Here are some crackers for you, - care for some bree?

Originally Posted by KevinK

But what do you mean "as if this has anything to do with them anymore"? Obviously it does.

Yeah, "obviously"! Just keep on clinging to that good old drama, - serves your worldview pretty well, doesn't it?

[Kevin]

Warung you added nothing to that response worth a darn. Might as well not posted.

You didn't refute anything I said.

I'll take that as you really had nothing you could refute.

I also noticed you left out part of my post. You know, the one that did show a difference between the way the two acted.

Why was that?

[Warung]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Warung you added nothing to that response worth a darn. Might as well not posted.

Hey, you brought up the entire conservative/liberal dichotomy, not me. If you want to believe in the farce called your court- and political system of a two party "showdown", that's up to you.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

Hey, you brought up the entire conservative/liberal dichotomy, not me. If you want to believe in the farce called your court- and political system of a two party "showdown", that's up to you.

Nothing to "Believe" I am just calling it how it was.

One side was for it, one was against it.

What do you call that Warung?

You again, added nothing. Congratulations.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by KevinK

One side was for it, one was against it.

What do you call that Warung?

a farce. (I already wrote that).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

a farce. (I already wrote that).

There certainly wasn't anything comedic about it.. So no farce.

Unless of course you are trying to say it didn't happen that way.

If that is the case, you are wrong there too.

So all around you are wrong.

How does it feel?

[Warung]

Originally Posted by KevinK

There certainly wasn't anything comedic about it.. So no farce.

blah blah blah

How does it feel?

You tell me, since it seems like you're even able to comprehend the simplest of concepts.


Main Entry: farce
Function: noun

4 a : ridiculous or empty show b : MOCKERY <the enforcement of this law became a farce>

Now off to the corner of the room...and don't forget your cap.

[budster101]

Ibl.

[turtle777]

Why does Zimpi always get into a fight with someone ?

-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

You tell me, since it seems like you're even able to comprehend the simplest of concepts.

100% Silly.

Main Entry: farce
Function: noun

4 a : ridiculous or empty show b : MOCKERY <the enforcement of this law became a farce>

farce |färs| noun a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations. • the genre of such works. • an absurd event : the debate turned into a drunken farce.

I can play that game too

Now off to the corner of the room...and don't forget your cap.

Boy you sure showed me!

You have yet to debunk anything I have said yet. Just a bunch if verbal masturbation and silly pretentiousness.

WAY TO GO!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Why does Zimpi always get into a fight with someone ?

-t

A more honest question turtle would be why do people feel so threatened by me that they have to post ridiculous things like.

Originally Posted by Warung

Did that new user name come with a loaded crackpipe, or is your keyboard broken?

Instead of actually debunking anything I said.

That is what started all this silliness.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Why does Zimpi always get into a fight with someone ?

-t

Because he has a small penis.

[Kevin]

Why have you been staring at my penis?

[Warung]

Originally Posted by KevinK

I can play that game too

Nope, no more games for you today. Now off off to the corner...

Oh, and your assignment for next week will be to learn to read dictonary entries correctly.

Bye now.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Warung

verbal masturbation removed
Oh, and your assignment for next week will be to learn to read dictonary entries correctly.

Show the class how I read that one incorrectly.

[wdlove]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Now, I promised myself I would stay out of political discussions on MacNN. But you just have to know that in the European sense, there's no such thing as a liberal party in the US. You have two conservative parties that split power between them.

Enjoy.

Sadly you don't fully understand the beliefs of the Democrat party in the United States. They are fully in line with Europe.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Warung

Because he has a small penis.

Wow, you are so full of shi..., uhm, wit...

-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Wow, you are so full of shi..., uhm, wit...

[insha]

Originally Posted by wdlove

Sadly you don't fully understand the beliefs of the Democrat party in the United States. They are fully in line with Europe.

How so?

Not flaming, just want to know; as I don't know much about the Euro-Political make-up of the parties as compared to our Repub/Demo/Indi, is all.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

So... basically we have no property rights?

I think I'll go burn a flag.

Do it quick, the Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning passed the House and is on its way to the Senate.

[turtle777]

It's gone to war lounge. Bye, bye, thread. See you locked soon...

-t

[Mister Elf]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And, if you get a big enough gun, it can keep the rain off your head after the government gives your home to a hotel.

Or you can use it to keep them off your property, as is your right in the first place...

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Conservatives for the poor. Liberals for the wealthy elites

It's a little back-asswards, ain't it? Usually it's the republicans who are all for big business.

but regardless, it's f'd up.

[Cody Dawg]

It's really unbelievable.

"The New Age of American Communism™"

[NYCFarmboy]

There should be a litmus test on the next Supreme Court nominee specifically on this issue, and how he or she would vote.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Well, they built the railroads by taking land, and giving it to private companies who built tracks on it. And frankly, this was for the common good, since it set up an essential transportation infrastructure, back in the 19th century. I fail to see how increasing a local tax base doesn't serve the public good.

But surely though the constitutional language in the 5th Amendment isn't "public good." The words in the Amendment are "public use." I would have thought there is quite a distinction between the two. Almost anything can be called a public good. But a public use seems to me to be narrower. It implies to me not just an economic effect, but actual use by the public.

To take your railroad example, sure, title is held by a private corporation, but the use the railroads were put to was still public. Railroads are common carriers. The public rides them, and ships its good on them, much like a public road or waterway. By contrast, Pfizer's plant isn't going to be used by the public at all. It seems to me that is unambiguously private use. Drawing the line there would have been consistent with the Constitutional text. Your interpretation seems to require rewriting the Constitutional text. You have to substitute the word "good" for "use."

A question for you: under your (and the court's) theory of public good as anything that raises the tax base, what wouldn't be a permissible basis for a taking? Have the words "public use" been read out entirely? What line do they draw, bearing in mind that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit government power?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

A question for you: under your (and the court's) theory of public good as anything that raises the tax base, what wouldn't be a permissible basis for a taking? Have the words "public use" been read out entirely? What line do they draw, bearing in mind that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit government power?

Not to answer for cpt. roo, but I think the court did provide a line: It has to be part of a comprehensive plan to improve a city, and it can't be just to benefit another private citizen.

Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

I'm not saying I agree with the decision - I don't. It seems to me that constitutional rights aren't worth anything if courts always defer to the legislature; I much prefer the conservatives' activist dissent in this case.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Not to answer for cpt. roo, but I think the court did provide a line: It has to be part of a comprehensive plan to improve a city, and it can't be just to benefit another private citizen.

Does that make any sense? States have comprehensive zoning. All land use is "part of a comprehensive plan to improve a city." That seems to me to be a test with no teeth whatsoever. To meet it all a government must do is repeat the mantra "part of a comprehensive plan to improve a city" and voila! they get to take private property. The 5th Amendment thus became a nullity. It's no longer an actual limit, just a pretence at one.

Secondly, I still don't see the public use. Taking property to give to Pfizer to build a $30 million factory is as much private use as it would be to take land and give it to Bill Gates to build a $30 million house. Your snippet (and sorry, I don't have time to read the case) says that you can't take and give to one individual. Pfizer is an individual.

You are right by the way to characterize the dissents as activist. They are activist the way the courts are supposed to be activist when construing the Bill of Rights -- in favor of limiting the reach of government over individuals.

Oh well, maybe the outcry will be such that the states will step in and put in place limits of their own. I understand that five states already outlaw this under their constitutions. Hopefully others will follow.

[saab95]

Say bye-bye to your property rights!

[CreepingDeth]

Saab, there's a thread you might be interested in at the Lounge…something about the IRS.

You beat me to the C&F cartoon. Damn.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Does that make any sense? States have comprehensive zoning. All land use is "part of a comprehensive plan to improve a city." That seems to me to be a test with no teeth whatsoever. To meet it all a government must do is repeat the mantra "part of a comprehensive plan to improve a city" and voila! they get to take private property. The 5th Amendment thus became a nullity. It's no longer an actual limit, just a pretence at one.

Well, hopefully courts will be able to see through any empty mantras if a legislature tries that. The court believed it was clear that this case was for a genuine economic development plan, and not just some sneaky way to pay off a private individual.

Secondly, I still don't see the public use. Taking property to give to Pfizer to build a $30 million factory is as much private use as it would be to take land and give it to Bill Gates to build a $30 million house. Your snippet (and sorry, I don't have time to read the case) says that you can't take and give to one individual. Pfizer is an individual.

This land wasn't being given to Pfizer. It was for a hotel, shopping and restaurant areas, a state park, museum, marina, office space, etc. The development plan was started after Pfizer announced they were buying land to build a research facility, so I presume that none of the Pfizer land was involved here. The land is described as being next to the future Pfizer plant. It would certainly benefit Pfizer to build around their facility, but I don't believe the land itself was being given to Pfizer.

My understanding is that most if not all of the private space being zoned here was not yet rented or purchased - it wasn't slated for any specific private individual.

You are right by the way to characterize the dissents as activist. They are activist the way the courts are supposed to be activist when construing the Bill of Rights -- in favor of limiting the reach of government over individuals.

Absolutely! Isn't that how judicial activism usually works - supposedly "finding" new constitutional rights and overturning the popular will against those rights? Roe, Lawrence v. Texas, Miranda, etc. I hope they invent more and more penumbras and emanations.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well, hopefully courts will be able to see through any empty mantras if a legislature tries that.

You are more confident of that than I am. In analogous areas of the law (e.g. the commerce clause) where rational basis review is used, the courts are so deferential that they will accept any legislative statement (or sometimes no statement at all). I suspect (or fear that) a mere legislative finding will be enough.

Absolutely! Isn't that how judicial activism usually works - supposedly "finding" new constitutional rights and overturning the popular will against those rights? Roe, Lawrence v. Texas, Miranda, etc. I hope they invent more and more penumbras and emanations.

No, those are not analogous situations. This isn't the courts hunting for an implication in the Bill of Rights or finding rights that the Founders didn't expressly consider. This should have been something much more basic. It's the courts maintaining rights that the Founders considered so important that they were included in the Bill of Rights as part of a compromise without which the Constitution itself would never have been ratified. The court's job here was to enforce the Constitutional limit on the power of the legislature to invade individual rights. There was no need here for the courts to look to any penumbras or imply anything that isn't obviously there. All they had to do was read the damned document in front of them and enforce it as it was originally intended to be applied.

What happened this week was a part of the Bill of Rights either died or is lying wounded in the gutter. That's something to mourn. As Joseph Story in 1833 said:

It seems to be the general opinion, fortified by a strong current of judicial opinion, that since the American revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A. and transfer it to B. by a mere legislative act. A government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon a legislative body, without any restraint.

Edit: interesting commentary here by people who know a lot more about this than me.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

What happened this week was a part of the Bill of Rights either died or is lying wounded in the gutter. That's something to mourn.

Hmm? What is it about this case that has people so worked up? A conservative history prof friend of mine was out tonight with a black arm band for Kelo.

As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing changed with this decision. The "public use" had already been interpreted as the more general "public good," several times. This case was about an attempt to get the court to reverse its precedents in this area, and they declined. Look at the dissents, especially Thomas' - he explicitly acknowledges that this is just one case in a long line that he disagrees with, and spends most of his time criticizing those earlier decisions, not this one.

As a liberal, I would much rather have expansive individual rights against government interference, and so I agree with the conservative dissenters in this instance. But the idea that this decision is the death of part of the Bill of Rights is a bit over the top. It's just maintaining the status quo.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ort888

They should only be allowed to do this if they can offer you 3 times the current value of your home as compensation.

and how about a house that has been owned by many generations of the same family that just dont want to give up there land, no one should be forced to give up there land and home for a private company. Cities and government is a bit different some times the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one when it comes to hwys and such but a private business, thats just messed up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hmm? What is it about this case that has people so worked up? A conservative history prof friend of mine was out tonight with a black arm band for Kelo.

As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing changed with this decision. The "public use" had already been interpreted as the more general "public good," several times. This case was about an attempt to get the court to reverse its precedents in this area, and they declined. Look at the dissents, especially Thomas' - he explicitly acknowledges that this is just one case in a long line that he disagrees with, and spends most of his time criticizing those earlier decisions, not this one.

As a liberal, I would much rather have expansive individual rights against government interference, and so I agree with the conservative dissenters in this instance. But the idea that this decision is the death of part of the Bill of Rights is a bit over the top. It's just maintaining the status quo.

It has both changed little, and changed a great deal. It's true of course that most erosions of constitutional rights take place over a period of time. The Court rarely makes dramatic leaps. However, certain cases present a moment where the Court can turn back and when it chooses not to, it establishes a precedent that is hard to reverse and thus represents a moment of almost finality. Over at Volokh.com this case has been compared to the 1986 gay sodomy case Bowers v. Hardwick. Like that case, there was lots of precedent for upholding the government's actions. But when the majority of the Supreme Court explicitly threw its weight behind the government over the rights of the citizenry, it was a sad moment. The Court's holding emboldened the government to take further freedom-limiting steps, which is why so much effort was put into finding the right case to reverse Bowers.

This case is, I think, similar. And in fact a little bit like Bowers the Court here has taken a step against the tide of legal opinion. It has endorsed an expansive interpretation of government power when other courts have been going the other way. One of the leading cases was a case called Poletown. I read it in property class and it is so much the leading case that I mistakenly remembered it as a U.S. Supreme Court case. In fact, it was the Michigan Supreme Court. The story of Poletown is that an auto manufacturer (I think it was GM) told the City of Detroit that if it didn't get a large parcel of land to build a new factory, it would leave town. What the City of Detroit did was decide to use the power of eminent domain to assemble that parcel of land and then hand it to the private entity, on the theory that doing so would be a public purpose. After all, if they didn't, the community would lose an employer. In other words, the City gave in to corporate blackmail, and decided to use its government power to the advantage of a private entity. And which neighborhood did they pick to destroy? It was, of course, a poor black neighborhood. That's how this sort of thing typically works out in practice. They were politically powerless, and their land (though vital to them) was valued less than middle class or white areas, so the poor minorities didn't get much compensation. Their community was destroyed, and the Michigan Supreme Court later upheld the act.

Poletown for many years stood as a horrible example of this behavior and it got a lot of criticism. Just last year the Michigan Supreme Court reversed itself and overturned Poletown. Other states have done the same or similar thing. But now the Supreme Court has bucked that trend, and gone back to the Poletown principle. In fact worse, because Poletown was within the urban blight line of cases.

So that is why this is such a bad decision, and why it is important, even though it is evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. Once justice (sorry, I can't off hand remember who) once quipped in an opinion that the Supreme Court isn't supreme because it is right, it is right because it is supreme. Well, here, it is both supreme, and wrong. But I don't agree with you that this is a liberal-conservative thing. It's more libertarian vs state authoritarian. The Bill of Rights represents values that today we would call libertarian. You could also call them classical liberal, or whiggish values, and they are the values this country was founded on. The Fifth Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to defend those interests against exactly the pressures the Court this week caved to, and it was placed there as part of a national compromise. Remember, the Federalists promised the Bill of Rights in exchange for ratification. So the Court here has undone part of that compromise and taken one more step away from the Constitution as it was intended to be interpreted. It is truly sad.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

It's a little back-asswards, ain't it? Usually it's the republicans who are all for big business.

No, both are for big business and the poor. This shows that.

That stereotype above you just mentioned is just that.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by KevinK

No, both are for big business and the poor. This shows that.

That stereotype above you just mentioned is just that.

In other words, there is no real left party in the US. They're both more or less conservative.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Saab, there's a thread you might be interested in at the Lounge…something about the IRS.

You beat me to the C&F cartoon. Damn.

I'm not always that quick

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

In other words, there is no real left party in the US. They're both more or less conservative.

No, that isnt what I said.

I said BOTH sides are for business. BOTH sides are for the poor.

It's like that anywhere. Admit it or not.

I mean take France for example. They didn't trade oil for guns because of socialist ideals.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by Busemann

In other words, there is no real left party in the US. They're both more or less conservative.

More like- both parties are unreceptive to the needs of producers who pay their freight via taxes, and more receptive to the gangster entities who bribe them.