navwin » Discussion » The Alley » I have but one to give to my country
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic I have but one to give to my country Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
wranx
Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689
Moved from a shack to a barn

0 posted 2005-07-04 11:42 PM


I'm dumbfounded by the recent Supreme Court finding on the 5th Ammendment


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Private property taken for public use. Yes, Eminent domain is a legitimate government power and it has its place for highway contruction and public facilities such as schools and water supplies. But, I wonder what source material did five judges draw upon to determine it is Constitutional for the government act as "muscle" for the "developers" who are coveting your land.


Just when I thought it sucked that I don't own any waterfront or other desirable property, the Supreme Court reminded me that what I don't own, can't be taken away.

In a narrow decision, the Court has determined that (y)our Municipal, County, State or Federal Government may take a private citizen's real property (exercising Eminent Domain) and sell it to a private, profit-making concern for no better reason than increasing the tax base.

It would seem now, that no one can truly say they own anything. Only that they are acting as steward until such time as the government (or a "friend" of government) decides they can make money from it.

I find it astounding that the assenting judges couldn't take this decision the next small step forward and imagine the many, many abuses of this power that will happen.
What "Fair market value" do you assign to, "We don't want to leave our homes and businesses because you think the City needs another strip center?"

Oh! and since the Supreme Court has determined the display of the Decalogue on public property is constitutionally ok in certain circumstances....Maybe they should have required this one to be stricken.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Fortunately, not possessing a house, wife, servant, ox, or much of anything else, I am in danger of having the government condemning only...

my ass



© Copyright 2005 E.F.Rose - All Rights Reserved
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
1 posted 2005-07-05 12:10 PM


George Bush made the comment the other day that it's 'his job to keep this economy growing'.

Absolutly incredulous I was at this 'conservative' viewpoint -- combined with this type of decision from the Court, recent actions by the Congress -- it appears the confluence of corporatism and conservatism has left conservatism a little cold.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

2 posted 2005-07-05 02:58 AM


I sure hope I don't have to make clothes outta my curtains.

smile...

Bush...emminent domain...my ass?



It could get bad, folks.

(get bad?)

*wince*

As if it ain't already worse.

I would/will vote for Al Franken in the next presidential election.

Unless of course, mayor-elect yeti runs, or perhaps the write-in candidate of a Local Reb?

littlewing
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655
New York
3 posted 2005-07-05 03:25 AM


At a 4th of July baseball game when they announced the greatest Americans of all time, Oprah made it up on the screen
(not kidding, that got a laugh from the crowd) and Bush did not.  

It would have started a riot if he had.  

wranx
Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689
Moved from a shack to a barn
4 posted 2005-07-05 06:01 AM


I never really considered the presidency entering into this decision. Only that the High Court may indeed be "high".

Or corrupt, or effete,

Or so out of touch with Human nature they actually can't forsee how this finding will abet greed.

BTW, I've not talked to anyone...Democrat, Republican, conservative or liberal who isn't appalled by this. But then I don't talk to many developers and can't abide politicians.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
5 posted 2005-07-05 06:42 AM


Well Ed, Presidents appoint the judges and are ideologically driven... what ideology has dominated the White House for the last 40 years?  Seven of the Nine are Republican, supposedly conservative (ie limited government) appointed.  

What exactly is the ideology of the compassionate conservative president -- who sees his 'job' as commander-in-cheif of the economy, who views limited government as the largest deficits in history?  I get the compassionate part -- if you want to get spending under control you start by gauranteeing cuts to Social Security now so that future possible benefit cuts 30 years out don't have to be made.  

This thread is very much about Presidents.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
6 posted 2005-07-05 07:31 AM


I agree with you, wholehartedly, ed, on both counts. The decisions were incredible that defy belief and, although the fingers love to point at Bush, he doen't figure into it.

Wouldn't surprise me that O'conner's decision to retire was based on that decision.

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

7 posted 2005-07-05 08:18 AM


Being somewhat of a dummy on these here judicial/political issues, but wasn't the conservative block of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas the dissenting side along with the moderate O'Connor?
Wasn't it the liberal wing- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer who were the majority?
Looks like big government and we are here to help you won out over the evils of the conservative right.

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
8 posted 2005-07-05 09:01 AM


I am sure you have all seen this article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5106999,00.html

A case of what goes around, bites you?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

9 posted 2005-07-05 09:16 AM


I've got it.

Al Franken's slogan:

"Good Lookin' Curtains Make FUGLY Clothes."

*gulp*

dive

split-fin-splash



Izzis chicken, or serenity?

glug

glug

glug

sigh

burble:  o o o o o o o

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
10 posted 2005-07-05 09:17 AM


Some people just can't help themselves but blame Bush for everything. Who was the last Justice he appointed?

I suppose the next thing is for the city to abscound with every residential property then make us all pay rent. That would surely increase the tax base.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

11 posted 2005-07-05 09:47 AM


Pete?

That's just about what is happening here in New Orleans.

Cept they call it property tax re-assessment, and it's not based on our depressed economy, and last I heard, nobody came out to count my mama's termites, either. The lizards are protecting her, tho.

Friggin' reptiles.

and there I go sounding hysterical again...


Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
12 posted 2005-07-05 11:04 AM


Thanks Tim for the clarification on which side of the ruling the Justices fell.  More liberal pro, more conservative con.  And yeah, there's always going to be someone around to holler "It's all Bush's fault!  It's all about oil!" or similiar daft epithets.  For those saying it's been just Republicans stuffing the Justice Pool, like FDR did during the 1930's and 1940's, here's a handy dandy link:

Supreme Court Justices

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
13 posted 2005-07-05 01:11 PM


I don't know what side of the futon those "liberal" judges woke up on when that decision was made, but that's one decision I still am absolutely flustered by.

And yes, I believe Bush should be and deserves to be blamed for much else of the growing chasm between the rich and poor, corporations and co-ops, but this decision is another ingredient to the great problem where the "little guy" is being given the cold shoulder.

It seems our whole political infrastructure right now seems to lean more pro-Marriott than pro-John & Jane.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
14 posted 2005-07-05 01:42 PM


Noah, I'm confused.  What does President Bush have to do with Supreme Court rulings and the actions of County and State governments?  It wasn't the Federal Government trying to take property for increased tax revenues, it was local and state governments.  So, if you could please enlighten me, would you explain the correlation between the President of the United States and the actions of Governors and Mayors, or in the case of New London, Connecticut, City Managers?

[This message has been edited by Alicat (07-05-2005 02:27 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
15 posted 2005-07-05 08:23 PM


quote:


Some people just can't help themselves but blame Bush for everything. Who was the last Justice he appointed?

And yeah, there's always going to be someone around to holler "It's all Bush's fault! It's all about oil!" or similiar daft epithets. For those saying it's been just Republicans stuffing the Justice Pool, like FDR did during the 1930's and 1940's, here's a handy dandy link:

although the fingers love to point at Bush, he doen't figure into it.




I don't know what you guys are reading -- but here's what I wrote;

quote:


George Bush made the comment the other day that it's 'his job to keep this economy growing'.

Absolutely incredulous I was at this 'conservative' viewpoint -- combined with this type of decision from the Court, recent actions by the Congress -- it appears the confluence of corporatism and conservatism has left conservatism a little cold.



Now, in this statement you'll note two things -- first -- what I accuse Bush of is saying what he said, which, doesn't jive with conservative Smithean economics.  It's either an incredibly stupid misunderestimated statement -- or -- it's what he really thinks -- you decide.

In the second statement I use the words -- combined, and confluence -- words we use when discussing two separate things.  So, clearly I lay no blame on (this) Bush for this Supreme Court decision.

In my second posting -- you may correctly infer that I may lay responsibility with Bush 41 -- Souter is his appointment.  

In your Zeal to defend your party politics you miss the entire point that there isn't a Jeffersonian to be found in Washington -- of course Jefferson wasn't even a Jeffersonian for long as soon as that whole Louisiana purchase thing came up he did an about face -- what we have are a bunch of Whigs, in the Whitehouse, on the Bench, and in the Congress.

Thanks Cat for your post which confirms my information -- 7 of 9 Justices --Republican Presidential appointees.

quote:

Wasn't it the liberal wing- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer who were the majority?
Looks like big government and we are here to help you won out over the evils of the conservative right.



You may argue that Ginsburg and Breyer are liberals -- and when was the last time that a Zebra with Stripes made headlines?  -- but Stevens and Souter are much more varied and four do not a majority make -- the uber-conservative Kennedy was key to this decision.

If you actually read the decision you'll see two things -- it aint all that easy for a government to do this -- and...the government has owned your ass since the railroad went across the continent.  

KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04 -108


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
16 posted 2005-07-05 08:34 PM



“The greatest good for the greatest number.”

Wasn't that notion at play here?

It wasn’t so that the developers could get rich
but that many others could get jobs that was at issue here
if I remember what little I know of it correctly.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2005-07-05 09:41 PM


Thanks Cat for your post which confirms my information -- 7 of 9 Justices --Republican Presidential appointees.

I'm not really sure where that figures in. Is it supposed to mean that this decision was made because the majority of the Supreme Court was appointed by Republicans? If whoever appointed each justice is somehow significant to this decision, then do we say the two Clinton appointees who both voted in favor of it make Clinton responsible or is Bush Sr, bringing Soutar in responsible? I don't see where this type of thinking goes anywhere.

Also, if the supposedly conservative make-up of the supreme court is responsible for this ruling then does that mean the thousands of other decisions they have made without incident or protest deserve praise? You can't have it both ways.

Personally I don't think appointments have anything to do with this decision. It was a bad decision made by five indivuals who should have known better.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
18 posted 2005-07-05 09:56 PM


quote:

Personally I don't think appointments have anything to do with this decision. It was a bad decision made by five indivuals who should have known better.



How did those individuals get thier jobs?

Appointments have everything to do with it -- Presidential politics and elections have everything to do with it -- and what I'm saying about the Repbulicans is what I've been saying all along -- they aren't (suprise) interested in protecting individual rights even though they talk a good game of individualism -- sure the Clinton appointees are responsible -- but like I asked before - since when do Zebras with stripes make headlines?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2005-07-05 10:20 PM


...and, as I asked before, are you then going to give credit for all of the good decisions or lambaste them for that one? It appears you want to call them a Republican supreme Court when criticising only. Has anyone said over the past 10 or 20 years, "Boy, that Republican Supreme Court is really good"? I can assure you no Democrat has

Their decision was not a conservative decision, as evidenced by the condemnation of the Rebublicans in Congress. On the other side, however, according to Nancy Pelosi...

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court," said the Minority Leader. "So this is almost as if God has spoken."

Let us pray.....

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
20 posted 2005-07-05 10:23 PM


quote:

...and, as I asked before, are you then going to give credit for all of the good decisions or lambaste them for that one?



Have you talked to Bill Frist or Tom Delay lately?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
21 posted 2005-07-05 10:40 PM


Answering questions with questions is alway an interesting tact...

No, I talk to them about as much as you talk to  Teddy K.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
22 posted 2005-07-05 11:08 PM


No, I don't -- what was the question?  Oh yeah -- good decisions, bad decisions -- they're all the decisions of an independent judiciary -- an essential component of the republic - but they aren't totally isolated from the political process -- it is rather the conservative voices that are constantly beating the drums over the court

quote:

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court," said the Minority Leader. "So this is almost as if God has spoken."

Let us pray.....



so where's the emergency legislation?  8 states have protections already to gaurd the populace from eminent domain run amok... is Frist going to call an all night session to deal with this?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2005-07-05 11:22 PM


good question...and I don't have, nor would you expect me to have, an answer. They don't really keep me informed.

What can one do against nancy pelosi's God??

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

24 posted 2005-07-05 11:27 PM


the uber-conservative Kennedy?
are we talking about the same Supreme Court?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
25 posted 2005-07-05 11:29 PM


A very pretty lady -- and hey... freedom of religion... I'd go out with her.
wranx
Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689
Moved from a shack to a barn
26 posted 2005-07-05 11:35 PM


Its a given that the Supreme Court judges will reflect the values of those who appointed them...Though, those assurances have been known to blow up the in faces of some presidents.

Also, O'Connor did write a scathing dissenting opinion on this one...maybe she'd had enough.

And it seems to me protection from Eminent domain run amok is REALLY needed now that the candy store is unlocked.

For the greater good...YES!
But I fail to see how developers condemning (through the municipality)a middle class neighborhood to
erect a casino/marina will benefit the citizenry more than the new landowner.

Where this sort of thing was possible, but problematic before..."Back-room" deals can now become the rule.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
27 posted 2005-07-05 11:49 PM


quote:

Its a given that the Supreme Court judges will reflect the values of those who appointed them...Though, those assurances have been known to blow up the in faces of some presidents.



Eisenhower -- Brennan
Nixon -Blackmun
Ford - Stevens
O'Conner - Reagan
Souter - Bush
Kennedy - Reagan (who swings both ways)

The fact is though -- 33 of the 73 rulings this term were decided by supermajorities -- this court hasn't been marked by divisiveness -- but has been substantially unanimous.  In contrast there were only 17 5/4 splits.

Kennedy is second only to O'Conner as a least frequent dissenter -- I don't think it means much to call this a liberal or conservative court -- nor this decision -- it may just be that the law was actually decided here and the legislatures just need to kick it in gear now to fix what the Justices couldn't legislate from the bench.

The so-called conservative wing, which is Kennedy, O'Conner, Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquist -- voted together only 8 times of the 17 5/4 splits -- doesn't sound like much of a wing.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
28 posted 2005-07-05 11:56 PM


Legislate from the Bench? That's not their job.

Legislature makes Laws.
Executive signs or rejects Laws.
Judicial interprets Laws.

Checks and Balances.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
29 posted 2005-07-05 11:59 PM


exactly -- that's what I said -- they couldn't legislate from the bench
Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

30 posted 2005-07-06 12:05 PM


The conservative wing is Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.  The liberal wing is Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens.  The centrists, or swing votes are O'Connor, Kennedy and depending on your perspective, Souter who is clearly off in the woods by himself.

The reason O'Connor and Kennedy are one-two in fewest dissents is because of that fact, they are the swing votes.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
31 posted 2005-07-06 12:15 PM


Until 2003 Kennedy was the conservative goldenchild -- why don't we discuss what the real beef is with him?

His 5/4 split striking down the Texas sodomy law...

This year he said states can't fry minors...


Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
32 posted 2005-07-06 12:34 PM


Sorry Reb, misread what you said earlier, since I know the Supreme Court has legislated from the Bench.  Not interpretation of the Constitution, not opinions on State/Federal law, but actually creating and expecting enforcement of laws.  That's what's gotten so many riled about the Supreme Court, the merging of the seperated powers, effectively nullifying Checks and Balances.  And yeah, I know it's been done before with the other Branches, be it strong Executive or strong Legislative.  It's when both Executive and Legislative are strong when some would argue the Government does its best work: nothing.
Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

33 posted 2005-07-06 12:45 PM


conservative golden child until 2003?
can't quite buy that one.  I would suspect most conservatives haven't been real happy with Kennedy for at least ten years.

the real beef? according to whom? for an uber-conservative, he has sided with the liberal members of the Court on a lot of cases over the years and is not adverse to ignoring stare decisis or utilizing foreign law or public opinion to shape his opinions.


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
34 posted 2005-07-06 12:08 PM


I don't think it is fair to blame any president.  Only just the fact the supreem court has issues.  Every one should know here my hatred for the supreem court.   Fine through me rulings, but this all started years ago. way before any of us were born.  The question I have unanswered is how to check a judicail board.  I am looking for constructive critism.

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

wranx
Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689
Moved from a shack to a barn
35 posted 2005-07-06 10:53 PM


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

Hells bells! What was I thinking?!?...

They were right after all!!!

There is nothing in the original language that says private property can't be taken for PRIVATE use...

Nor any provision for compensation when taken that way! I guess it could be argued that a municipality can take take someone's private property, sell it to a developer (for the greater good of the community, mind you) and pay nothing for it.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
36 posted 2005-07-06 11:59 PM


That is indeed one of the interpretations, and the majority of Justices went there, supporting 'something for nothing'.

Though most states have some policy about announcing eminent domain or annexation, there's no rules about where to place said announcement.  Of course, the onus is one the property owner(s) to be aware of this announcement.  Some of the more insidious cities have posted such in basements, on antideluvian decommisioned boilers deep in the bowels of city buildings, or as a very very small notice buried deep in the newspaper ads.

Houston, TX did something like that when they decided to annex the much wealthier Kingswood, for no other reason than the tax base.  And being on the Historic Registry is no guarantee.  There was an adobe house from the turn of the century here in Yuma.  By the time the announcement of demolition became public knowledge, much of the surrounding area was already being prepped for foundations and large parking lots.  And the latter is what they wanted that adobe house, on the Register, to become.  Asphalt and stripes.  The oldest house in town was summarily condemned, and after much public outcry and attempts by the property owner to move the structure, leveled.  Progress at all costs, even cultural heritage.  In my more sardonic moments, I'm reminded of the Soviets, and their despoilation of everything that got in the way of industrial progress, including the killing of almost all their freshwater rivers, lakes and ponds.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
37 posted 2005-07-12 12:00 PM


Have to laud Sandra Day O'Connor on her dissent in that opinion, Wranx.  (Makes me really wonder about the timing of her retirement, though.)
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
38 posted 2005-07-12 06:07 PM


Funny thing are the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.  Before, they were complaining that President Bush just wouldn't listen to them.  Now, they're complaining that he didn't do anything but listen to them.  Man, no pleasing some people.
wranx
Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689
Moved from a shack to a barn
39 posted 2005-07-12 10:51 PM


POLITICS!

*ptooie*

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » I have but one to give to my country

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary