SCOTUS: Cities may seize homes at will... Kelo v. New London (merged)

redhawk41 wrote:
this amendment proposal is based soley on emotional response to this obviously unconstitutional ruling.
Click to expand...
There's something here that you don't quite understand. Because of a decision back in 1803 that was never challenged (Marbury v. Madison), the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review. This power means that only the Supreme Court can interpret what the Constitution means (what the meaning of "is" is).

Therefore, any decision by this Court is absolutely Constitutional. To say that something they have ruled on is unconstitutional, is in fact a constitutional contradiction. There is only one way out. Amend the Constitution to define exactly what the phrase, "public use," means. And this needs to be done before the next case comes before them and they rule that even the states don't have the power to say what it means.

That is the two options before us. 1) Have our state laws or constitutions amended to define the terms (a stop gap measure). 2) Amend the Constitution itself.

There is always another option. Has to do with the real meaning of the Second. I don't propose that option because no one has the stomach for it.
 
I'm not suggesting a convention. I would oppose that idea. I'm suggesting an amendment. One amendment, targeted at defining for all America what the term "public use" shall mean in the context of eminent domain actions.

It's a subject on which virtually all Americans can actually agree, no matter their political views. Virtually no one likes this idea of the expansion of the tax base being sufficient justification to seize property. Opposition to the amendment should be political suicide.
 
Arrgh. See post 117 above, guys.

If someone hits you, do you smack yourself in response? We need to get RID of this abuse of eminent domain, not ratify it by participating in the looting ourselves. Taking Souter's home will never happen, and wouldn't help us if it did. It would hurt us.

It's a funny idea, but here's a good idea: write your Congresscritters and ask that they work to amend the Constitution to define public use in the context of eminent domain to mean, well, public use. As in roads, waterways, utilities, government buildings, things of that nature. NOT a more politically desirable private distribution of property. NOT an increased tax base.
 
I read it publius. I thought it was a great post.

However I also found wayne's story funny - and sometimes funny can be smart.

I'm sure the person who started the petition to take Souter's home knows it will not actually happen. I still think it's a witty way to show public disapproval - it's only a message. I seriously doubt any action will follow other than the publics voice being heard.
 
The ironic humor is not lost on me, and the idea of seizing Souter's home has certainly received lots of attention. There's a thread about it most everywhere you go. ;)

But it's a distraction, and at best is used as an illustration of why a broad definition of "public use" is likely to lead to abusive results. People who know better are tempted by this idea. Heck, I'm tempted by it. That's how power corrupts.
 
Sorry 'bout that. I didn't mean to repeat anything. I didn't read all 122 replies before I posted, just skimmed the first and last page. In Florida, we have laws prohibiting the taking of lands for private development. Why can't other states do this?

As for another amendment? That's a stopgap measure, too. Consider the recent decision on the death penalty in which "international opinion" was cited as justification in the majority opinion. SCOTUS is running wild. We need to replace 5 justices with someone who will properly interpret the law of the land. Too bad we can't get rid of them until they retire. While the court leans the other way we wqould be continually amending the constitution to right obvious wrongs.

If someone hits you, do you smack yourself in response?
Click to expand...

No, I hit back. Honestly, sometimes I think we're reaching the point where the masses will show up in front of Souter's place with pitchforks and torches. Of course it will never happen. The town board could send Souter packing or at the least let him fight it in court for years, like the common man, but they'll see it as a "funny idea" and just laugh it off. Enough harrassment and maybe some justices would step aside.

Just my$.02 worth.
 
I think with your suggestion, and actions such as the petition (however looney they may seem) we can show how ridiculous this really is. :)

I've written my Senator about the DC Gun ban (today at work during my lunch hour). I intend to write a letter to my congresscritter about the SCOTUS decision.

Ya know, I've written about 15-20 such letter (various topics) in the past few months. A person ont he board here (lost his PM in my message folder :mad: ) put me on a good path getting involved at my state level, and in the house and senate. Anyway, I've yet to get a response from any one of my letters. And they weren't emails.... I actually licked an envelop hoping it would at least have to get open and half-read by an intern who'd have to at least waste some postage sending me a form letter telling me to go screw myself. Nothing... I haven't gotten a thing.

Kind of discouraging.
 
Rich Lucibella & Capt. Charley:

I intended no criticism of Capt. Charlie, which I hope he understands. He certainly sounds like a decent person.

I grew up asking questions, questioning authority, esecially when it is waved around for it's own sake, which is what The Court seems to have done in this case.

It strikes me that unless the people of this country, stand up and tell their elected things, the ones who confirm federal judges to the lifetime positions that they hold, where to get off, and demand that they correct a number of messes, that nothing will get done, and things will likely get worse.

When leaders no longer listen to reason, reason will be given up, and other means of expression, undesirable forms of expression will be taken up. As an earlier poster noted, and sadly I'm inclined to agree with him, PEOPLE WILL DIE. Funny thing is that some might be quite surprised as who will be found to be amongst that select group.
 
Alan

"I intended no criticism of Capt. Charlie, which I hope he understands."

I do, and no harm, no foul. You had valid questions, which I hope were answered as well as can be.
 
Wayne,

Sometimes, we need to replace six of them.

Trip,

They don't get free postage so they can write you back. They get it so they can send you letters telling you about all the pork they're bringing home.

alan,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Still sufferable, IMO. Getting less so. We can and should stop that.
 
Bumping this back to the top, as there are new developments (pun intended) to the Kelo/New London Development Corporation controversy.

BizzyBlog has the latest update on the New London/Kelo land deal.
 
2 things need to be done to correct the problem.

First, get rid of the idiots who authorized the emminent domain proceedings. Get a special election, recall, whatever in place and GET RID OF those responsible as fast as possible. Then get their replacements to rescind the ED authorization.

Second, get a State referendum onto the ballot at the next election and change the State Constitution to prohibit ED for economic purposes.
 
This problem, and it is a problem, can be handled on an individual case by case action by each individual state as it has been in Alabama, until such time that the Supreme court overturns that right. However the new legislation in Alabama does leave it open for the confiscation of private land for things such as schools, fire departments and such.
 
Yes, states can fix this themselves.

In fact, let's do away with the entire federal constitution, because states can do everything themselves... including cooperate with other states when needed. :rolleyes:
 
Here's an interesting tidbit about cooperation between states.

In the beginning the federal constitution was created so that the various states would have some sort of playbook to go by when they met (in congress) to discuss their cooperation, interactions, and resolve difficulties. Because the constitution was only meant to be a guideplan, there was no need for the fedgov to own property, have an army, tax the citizens, etc. All of that was supposed to be left to the States.

Unfortunately, the States don't like to play by the rules. Take interstate commerce for example. Some states eager to enhance the local economy enacted laws which required that trucks passing through their states use specific brands of (get this) tires on their trucks. Of course the tires were mfg'd in the state in question and it was illegal to use tires made out of state even if you were just passing through and making no stops at all.

That is a perfect example of how well States "cooperate" with each other and why the Fed govt is needed and why the various clauses in the Constitution have been watered down to nothingness. And if you think that States today know better, think again. That sort of thing STILL goes on because people are greedy and shortsighted.
 
It was forseen that some states would not play well with others, but it was also understood that the commerce power was meant to prevent abuses among the states, and not to create a federal regulatory state.

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top