Supreme Court rules homes can be seized for private use

Parent Cafe
121

<p>

</p>

<p>Proof please? I disagree. The doctrine of “public use” came from English common law, and was assumed to still hold, as were many other precepts of common law. It was also assumed that “public” MEANT public–period–for the use of the public. This does not mean for private use that generates public revenue. All of the examples you cite, mini, are also egregious excesses, which should never be done, but just don’t get challenged because of the cost of litigation. “Publicly owned” airports around the country are, for the most part, cesspits of corruption, nepotism, and mafiosa-like favoritism. “Public” sports stadia benefit only the owners, teams, and companies that have the connections to get one concession or another. They are not, by and large, open to the “public.”</p>

<p>But what about the economic development they generate? The real question is what about the investment that would have been done if the taxes had not been confiscated from the public for the benefit of a few? These so-called public projects are nothing more than an income and wealth transfer from the poor, working, and middle classes to those who have the money and influence.</p>

<p>Believe me, I have no hostility against the rich–I wish I was one!! and I certainly don’t blame them for taking advantage when they can, but why make it easier for them?</p>

<p>The only just government is one which treats all people equally, and this SC decision certainly doesn’t do that.</p>

122

<p>“They had no concept of corporations, and certainly no idea that corporations would ever be treated as “legal persons”, able to use bankruptcy laws to void their debts and with owners not held liable for any damages caused.”</p>

<p>mini - what planet did you learn history on? Incorporation far predates the US constitution and indeed the constitution was deemed necessary in no small part to make the life of corporations simpler and better. Ever hear of the The Harvard Corporation? It has been around for a while.</p>

123

<p>It’s not the SC decision that doesn’t treat all people equally, it’s Econ 101. The cost of exercising eminent domain would be much higher in Beverly Hills than in Echo Park. Hence, oddly enough, Dodger Stadium was built just east of downtown LA.</p>

<p>Someone just today commented on the tug-of-war between rich and poor and the fact that rich generally win. Duh. Unlike many societies, at least there’s “tug” in ours, via the process of the ballot box, where occasionally the un-rich win.</p>

<p>Given the class warfare being waged via deficits and tax code, the average un-rich person has better things to worry about than eminent domain.</p>

124

<p>June 27, 2005
Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land
by Scott Ott</p>

<p>(2005-06-27) – In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for ‘public purposes’ under eminent domain.</p>

<p>The 5-4 decision comes on the heels of last week’s court declaration that so-called “private” property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure.</p>

<p>In a second ruling handed down today, the Supreme Court banned the 10 commandments from appearing in courtrooms unless the following disclaimer is included: “Display of this historically-significant collection of laws shall not be construed as an endorsement of the God who may, or may not, have spoken them, nor of the existence of such a God, nor of the legality of the laws. Citizens may observe and obey these commandments at their own risk. Please consult your family attorney before embarking on any law-abiding regimen.”
<a href=“http://www.scrappleface.com%5B/url%5D”>www.scrappleface.com</a></p>

125

<p>That is absolutely ridiculous. It seriously sounds like a joke: “Citizens may observe and obey these commandments at their own risk.” Nice pointer, whew I am so glad my government can step in and remind me of the age old adage: “One must observe and obey the ten commandments at his own risk.” I cannot understand what they are thinking, either its legal or not, we don’t need some appendage. Lets just put a label on everything, smoke at your own risk, walk on this faulty sidewalk at your own risk, breathe at your own risk, sue at your own risk-- thanks, your government. Beautiful.</p>

126

<p>Sreis, I guess you missed that it was a joke site. :)</p>

127

<p>Hahaha. I was already in a critical mood and was ready to strike. When i saw that it looked too good to be true, not that I cared. Oh well. Thats where being both skeptical and lazy gets you. Wait a minute, aries, is THAT a joke?</p>

128

<p>Sooo confused. :slight_smile: I looked at the site… and realized that I had skimmed the article and missed a few important things, such as “last week’s court declaration that so-called “private” property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure.” Such comments tend to be a tip-off about satirical comments within. </p>

<p>What can I say… it’s Monday and I’m still at work.</p>

129

<p>June 24, 2005
Bush May Condemn and Seize Supreme Court
by Scott Ott</p>

<p>(2005-06-24) – A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize private property to promote economic development, President George Bush said he may soon move to seize the high court under “the executive branch’s power of eminent domain.”</p>

<p>The 5-4 court decision broadens the reasons for which properties can be taken under the Fifth Amendment beyond the traditional ‘public use’ (such as schools and highways) to include ‘public purposes’ such as…</p>

<pre><code>* increasing tax income to a municipality,

  • returning a favor to a wealthy developer who supported your city council campaign,
  • improving the view of the waterfront from the Mayor’s house, or
  • getting rid of grumpy old people who have lived in their homes long enough.
    </code></pre>

<p>“In the spirit of the new government takeover of American homes and businesses,” said President George Bush, “We may have to seize the moment to condemn some aging, faded and blighted elements of the Supreme Court. Then we can replace them with something that will serve public purposes.”
<a href=“http://www.scrappleface.com%5B/url%5D”>www.scrappleface.com</a></p>

130

<p>“Given the class warfare being waged via deficits and tax code, the average un-rich person has better things to worry about than eminent domain.”</p>

<p>Haha, TheDad, just what I was saying to DH at dinner. In the house which has not yet been seized.</p>

131

<p>Just a little more on the history of corporations vis a vis the US Constitution:

Source: <a href=“http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/Hx_Corporations_US.html[/url]”>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporations/Hx_Corporations_US.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

132

<p>Politicians will listen if they think the public opposes such takings</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783536132&path=!news”>http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP%2FMGArticle%2FCDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031783536132&path=!news&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

133

<p>the aftermath:</p>

<p><a href=“http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html[/url]”>http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

134

<p>You beat me to it, FF :slight_smile:

</p>

135

<p>Here’s another take:</p>

<p>[URL=<a href=“http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050629/domain.shtml]http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050629/domain.shtml[/URL”>http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050629/domain.shtml]http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050629/domain.shtml[/URL&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If you need a place to stay in New Hampshire, U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s property in the town of Weare may just meet your needs.</p>

<p>Californian Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media LLC filed papers Monday that he hopes will eventually permit him to take Souter’s home in Weare, N.H., through eminent domain.</p>

<p>Clements said that, if he has his way, Souter’s property will eventually be the home of The Lost Liberty Hotel.</p>

<p>The effort follows a Monday decision by the Supreme Court that ruled 5-4 that federal law does not prevent local governments from using eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another, provided the action is intended for the public good.</p>

<p>Souter joined in the majority opinion. Clements said his decision to pursue Souter’s property was an easy one.</p>

<p>“First of all, I knew his address,” Clements said.</p>

<p>Souter was appointed by then-President George H.W. Bush, a fact that gave Clements extra incentive to pursue ownership of the house on Cilley Hill Road.</p>

<p>In a letter to the code enforcement officer of Weare, Clements wrote, “although this property is owned by an individual … a recent Supreme Court case clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel.”</p>

<p>Clements said a hotel would better serve the public interest because it would attract economic development and increase tax revenues.</p>

<p>“We are planning to go ahead for real if the money comes in,” Clements said Tuesday. “So far, people are throwing money at me.” He said he has received dozens of investment proposals, ranging from $25 to $50,000. He said he did not even come up with the plan until Monday afternoon.</p>

<p>“Souter was appointed by a Republican and should have known better,” Clements said, “although Republicans are really good at disappointing us.”</p>

<p>He hopes his efforts get the attention of President Bush.</p>

<p>“It looks like there is going to be another vacancy (on the court) and I hope George Bush the Second chooses his nominees a little more carefully than his father did,” Clements said.</p>

<p>“We want to send that signal.”</p>

<p>In the meantime, he is looking for a good hotel architect.</p>

<p>Opinions: The article presented by fundingfather casts Clements in the light of one making an ironic statement about freedom and property rights. This article portrays him as vengeful. Which is it, or is it a little of both?</p>

136

<p>Politics makes strange bedfellows. </p>

<p>I am solidly against the seizure decision. Being in real estate, it is too easy to see the abuses here. Higher taxes do not = public good. On that logic every quaint beaach town in Ca should sprout Hong Kong style highrises.</p>

<p>Given the bad economy, insolvency, & housing crunch in Ca. this will be a temptation to every municipality. Horrifying.</p>

137

<p>SBmom, when the next SCOTUS vacancy comes up, can we count on your support for a Scalia-type judge? ;)</p>

138

<p>I’m with SBMom - it’s just too easy for municipalities to run over their residents in doing these things. IMO, we should never give rights away for increased convenience (in the sense of it being easier/more convenient to just seize people’s homes instead of waiting until they sell or offering them a deal or finding another place to put the $<em>^</em>^*& hotel). </p>

<p>This is where the libertarian/federalist divide comes up - those who are not “conservative” in the sense of being Republican or pro-life or whatever, but are firmly of the mind that we should be afforded those protections which are clearly written into the Constitution.</p>

139

<p>I for one am looking forward to a long weekend at the Lost Liberty Hotel.</p>

140

<p>

Agree, but Scalia’s votes on abortion have nothing to do with his views on abortion per se - they are consistent with his views on the constitution. He could personally be very pro-choice but he would likely vote to overturn Roe because of his perception of how the constitution should be applied.</p>