Moved from a shack to a barn
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...