Would You Accept a Supreme Court Ruling That there is No Individual Right Under

The Rabbi wrote:
In any case, after Kelo no one has had their home seized, right? Life has gone on pretty much as usual.
Click to expand...
You are joking, yes?

Immediately after the Kelo decision there were several cities that proceeded to file their ED claims. Most notable was the municipal officials in Freeport, Texas, who condemned two family-owned seafood businesses (businesses that grossed well over a million dollars a year, each) for a privately owned marina project. This condemnation had been on hold, awaiting the decision.

Besides, the Court has no need to take a 2A case. Not since the Raich ruling provides the Legislatures all the ammunition they need to ban anything under the pretext of the Commerce Clause!

Oh, and that sound you heard a couple of weeks ago? That was the shredding of the Constitution and the BoR.
 
Has your life personally changed one bit since Kelo? Has that of anyone you know personally?
No. Life goes on pretty much the same. The biggest change legally I have seen in the last year is that I am able to buy regular magazines at reasonable prices.
I also have been buying wine via the internet, thanks to the USSC ruling in NY State.
 
"Truly an amazing philosophy. I'm simply speechless."

Which translates at "No, my life hasnt changed, nor that of anyone I know, and life is going on pretty much unchanged"

The system will balance itself, wait and see.
 
Which translates at "No, my life hasnt changed, nor that of anyone I know, and life is going on pretty much unchanged"
Click to expand...

No, it probably translates to "this is an assinine philosophy, that if it doesn't affect me, it's no big deal."

As for changing lives, Kelo changed everyone's life in one way or another. The impact's just haven't hit home yet. And this comes from someone who's actually done work in the eminent domain field.

Has your life personally changed one bit since Kelo? Has that of anyone you know personally?
Click to expand...

Let me guess. You don't own property, do you?
 
Let me guess. You don't own property, do you?
Click to expand...

Actually quite a bit. that's how I make my living.

But I'm with Sendec, things will balance out. No politician wants to be seen evicting little old ladies from their homes and there has been a push to pass no private takings legislation.
I am not arguing that Kelo was a great decision. It sucked, maybe the worst one in this decade. But it is hardly TEOTWAWKI.
Until Supreme Court decisions seriously impinge the daily life of very large numbers of people nothing will happen. And dont even get started about "taking it to the rooftops."
 
No politician wants to be seen evicting little old ladies from their homes and there has been a push to pass no private takings legislation.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a push for private takings legislation. They don't need the legislation. All Kelo did was tell the gov't it could use existing authority to aid private business, and that's precisely what's happened in several areas. They are already doing this, but you don't care because it's not happening to you.
 
Have you read the link you cited to? It discussed how some of the legislation actually defined taking as having the value of a property by 20% or more. So if you reduce the value 19%, the landowner has no recourse.

As for state restrictions, most of those required a nexus between a legitimate gov't policy and the takings. Kelo doesn't change that, it allows them to interpret higher tax revenues from commerical use of property versus existing private use allows them to take said property. That doesn't conflict with anything you've cited to. Kelo redefines public use so every statute that doesn't specifically prohibit taking land for a private development effectively allows for precisely that.

As for reading your posts again, perhaps you should. The only reasonable interpretation of your position is that if something doesn't affect you personally or someone you know, it's not a major deal. That's been repeated to at least three times and you have yet to say that interpretation is wrong. In fact, you reinforce it by saying "everything will work out." Perhaps Rich (who can afford it better than I) needs to request the council of whatever area you have property in to seize it in exchange for a SWAT regional HQ. Maybe once you actually have an eviction notice in hand, this might matter to you.
 
What does Kelo have to do with the thread title? There are threads for Kelo.... several of them, in fact. :)
Would You Accept a Supreme Court Ruling That there is No Individual Right Under The Second Amendment to Keep and Bear Arms?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "accept?" I doubt 1 in 20 members reading this thread would "accept" it. There are three possibilities for those who don't accept a collectivist 2A interpretation from the Supremes:

a) Do nothing.
b) Work to change things, obeying federal/state laws.
c) Work to change things, ignoring federal/state laws.
 
needs to request the council of whatever area you have property in to seize it in exchange for a SWAT regional HQ. Maybe once you actually have an eviction notice in hand, this might matter to you.
Click to expand...

Actually that is a legitimate use of eminent domain, even before Kelo.

What do you mean by "accept?" I doubt 1 in 20 members reading this thread would "accept" it. There are three possibilities for those who don't accept a collectivist 2A interpretation from the Supremes:

a) Do nothing.
b) Work to change things, obeying federal/state laws.
c) Work to change things, ignoring federal/state laws.
Click to expand...

And of those 19 members I can say with a certain amount of confidence that 16 will do a), 3 will do b) and at least 16 will go on this board and others and blab about doing c).
 
Actually that is a legitimate use of eminent domain, even before Kelo.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. The closest thing to Kelo was the Tennessee Valley Authority taking land for the construction of reservoirs, and then selling that land for the creation of summer residences. It was found to be an appropriate use because the land was originally taken for a public purpose, and the subsequent use of the land for private residences had economic benefits to the society as a whole. Since then, land taken for other public projects (such as the creation of Oak Ridge) has been used for private purposes (golf courses, etc) under the justification of the initial taking being proper.

Now, under Kelo, the land can be taken from one private entity and handed to another without the gov't ever taking possession, and for no public purpose except tax revenues.
 
I hate to say it, but I fear the Court will read the Second Amendment right out of the Constitution. If that day comes, will you accept the Court's interpretation or will you continue to believe that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

Practically what difference would it make? In many states, mine included, there is an individual right in the state constitution. And the USSC would also have to hold that no only is there an individual right but it also applies to the states, which is not currently the situation.
 
The closest thing to Kelo was the Tennessee Valley Authority
Click to expand...
Before that was a series of takings of tribal land. I'd say probably the trail of tears is similar in its justification and its end effect.
 
Has your life personally changed one bit since Kelo? Has that of anyone you know personally?
Click to expand...

No, you're right, it can't happen here.

This thread's question presumes there will be a Supreme Court.
 
The city of Oakland, CA condemed two business. One, the tire store, is owned by a guy I know. The business was started by his father in 1949 and provided income for two generations. The city took the businesses for a pet project of our mayor Jerry Brown.

Rabbi - do you live in the United States?
 
Hello all
first post...Way I see it is it does not matter that I accept the Supremes ruling on the 2nd.
What does matter at first is what the active duty LEOS state and feds do.
Then the ball is in my court, If I do not agree.
 
The city of Oakland, CA condemed two business. One, the tire store, is owned by a guy I know. The business was started by his father in 1949 and provided income for two generations. The city took the businesses for a pet project of our mayor Jerry Brown.
Click to expand...

Col Klink, that sucks. But I suspect the city would have exercised eminent domain rightfully even without Kelo. Kelo was specifically about takings for private development, not public projects.
Yes, I have lived here all my life. You?
 
I think it would be best if the SCOTUS ruled that they have no jurisdiction over the individual RKBA except as it relates to militia. I think that is what they have always said. I think that is constitutional law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top