Supreme Court Takes Giant Crap on America

Sarcasmo said:
The point is that previously eminent domain was implemented by the local governments for the use of local governments. Now local governments can seize your home, your business, and basically your entire independent lifestyle and sell it to Bob, a land developer who wants to use it for his own purposes and build a mall and make lots of money. It is absolutely not the same thing.

It's about as un-American as it gets, honestly.
Click to expand...

the 1st time someone challenges it in court that shit is getting thrown right out
 
fly said:
People, this should be a STATE issue. Think about it.
Click to expand...


It IS a state issue, and I understand it should be. But the Supreme Court should have said "What the fuck are you people thinking? Taking people's homes? No way. Denied. And I reckon I oughta shoot a few people too, I'm so pissed off right now."

What the SC did is say "Meh, they are allowed to do it." They didn't just say it's a state issue and let the states sort it out. There's a difference. They ruled that it's perfectly acceptable.
 
fly said:
People, this should be a STATE issue. Think about it.
Click to expand...
Cities/States/AND Federal government have the authority to seize land in part by eminent domain which is part of the 5th Amendment.

It is a Federal issue because of that.
 
theacoustician said:
Cities/States/AND Federal government have the authority to seize land in part by eminent domain which is part of the 5th Amendment.

It is a Federal issue because of that.
Click to expand...
Well if its part of the 5th amendment, why is it an issue at all?
 
FlyNavy said:
it's better to just have them chosen by the president?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know. Think about how much people know about the candidates. The average American wouldn't know a good Supreme Court justice from their own asshole. At least presidents have advisory panels and an entire government to draw their information from.

I don't think I want ignorant people choosing who rules on the supreme laws of the United States, even though any idiot president can propose any idiot bill (which makes it basically the same thing.)

There are some things average citizens shouldn't do, which is why we have governments and leaders in the first place.
 
FlyNavy said:
it's better to just have them chosen by the president?
Click to expand...
MUCH.

All the stupid grandstanding done by "Dr" Senator Bill Frist is a perfect example. He had to take this big stand against the Terri Shavio thing, simply because he's thinking of running for president. Elections WOULD influence their votes. I have no idea how it couldn't.

edit: They are chosen by BOTH the exeuctive and legislative branches, btw...
 
fly said:
Well if its part of the 5th amendment, why is it an issue at all?
Click to expand...


Ask me that again when a constable knocks on your door and tells you your house is being confiscated. Or the business your family has owned for 125 years.
 
fly said:
MUCH.

All the stupid grandstanding done by "Dr" Senator Bill Frist is a perfect example. He had to take this big stand against the Terri Shavio thing, simply because he's thinking of running for president. Elections WOULD influence their votes. I have no idea how it couldn't.

edit: They are chosen by BOTH the exeuctive and legislative branches, btw...
Click to expand...
oh yea, forgot about that

lol check & balances :p
 
Sarcasmo said:
Ask me that again when a constable knocks on your door and tells you your house is being confiscated. Or the business your family has owned for 125 years.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree with it at all. It's a bunch of BS, but it apparently requires us to change the Bill of Rights...
 
fly said:
Well if its part of the 5th amendment, why is it an issue at all?
Click to expand...
Because eniment domain states that government bodies may only seize land (with appropriate reimbursement) for government projects deemed necessary to the survival of the city/state/country. Before this meant if a utility had to run through your land because there was no other way to distribute that service, the government can do it. Now its twisting that into "because a land developer says we can make more tax revenue if we give him your house, we can do it".
 
I assume they get paid fair market value. Which is actually far less then fair market value.
 
theacoustician said:
Because eniment domain states that government bodies may only seize land (with appropriate reimbursement) for government projects deemed necessary to the survival of the city/state/country. Before this meant if a utility had to run through your land because there was no other way to distribute that service, the government can do it. Now its twisting that into "because a land developer says we can make more tax revenue if we give him your house, we can do it".
Click to expand...


Precisely. What you're seeing here is a gradual shift in policy due to special interest influence. And that is anti-American. A land developer is a business entity, a for-profit enterprise. For the government to deliberately nurture them, especially in this way, is intolerable.
 
smileynev said:
I assume they get paid fair market value. Which is actually far less then fair market value.
Click to expand...
doesn't matter

If I spent ten years saving up to buy my house, I'm keeping it. I build the house I want, I take care of my land how I see fit, I do with my property what I please. No one should have the right to take that away from me. I don't care how much money is offered, if I've made a home then I intend to keep it.


Although it is kind of ironic how this country was created by theft of land and now we're bitching that the very government put in place to serve us is stealing it back....


do politicans forget that they're public servants?
 
theacoustician said:
Cities/States/AND Federal government have the authority to seize land in part by eminent domain which is part of the 5th Amendment.

It is a Federal issue because of that.
Click to expand...
With "just compensation", which pretty much leaves it up to the courts to decide how much they get for it, if anything.
 
theacoustician said:
Because eniment domain states that government bodies may only seize land (with appropriate reimbursement) for government projects deemed necessary to the survival of the city/state/country. Before this meant if a utility had to run through your land because there was no other way to distribute that service, the government can do it. Now its twisting that into "because a land developer says we can make more tax revenue if we give him your house, we can do it".
Click to expand...
Well, then the court case is different than the 5th amendment. It should be a state issue. I'm shocked that the Supreme Court took it then...
 
Sarcasmo said:
Precisely. What you're seeing here is a gradual shift in policy due to special interest influence. And that is anti-American. A land developer is a business entity, a for-profit enterprise. For the government to deliberately nurture them, especially in this way, is intolerable.
Click to expand...
It all comes back to campaign financing...
 
Our system, while fallible, is probably the best we can do as human beings. As such, is it better to tear it down and rebuild the exact same thing or change it from within.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back