 |
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I repeat - it created a clear precedent where the law was murky. That is why SCOTUS took the case. In that context, the quote from the developer who also felt precedent had been uncertain (in the WSJ, not exactly a liberal rag) shows that this will have an impact on the behavior of developers reference this kind of (mis)use of Eminent Domain, making it more likely. I stand by my premise, independent of Boortz. I also happen to agree with him, too.
Many people have been VERY uncomfortable with the continuously expanding use of Eminent Domain throughout the history of this country. They didn't like it when it was used to force individuals to sell to private railroads, and while we are discussing something that happened over a century ago - maybe the dissenters had a point, i.e. the slippery slope analogy. Without those cases, what we have happening today could not have happened. It's use for economic develpment has appeared to be on the rise in the last several decades, IMHO, and evidently in the opinion of legal scholars, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Your link is broken. |
Works fine for me. But anyway:
quote:
Damaging 'Deference'
By George F. Will
Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A31
The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did yesterday.
Most conservatives hoped that, in the most important case the court was to decide this term, judicial activism would put a leash on popularly elected local governments and would pull courts more deeply into American governance to protect the rights of individuals. Yesterday conservatives were disappointed.
The case came from New London, Conn., where the city government, like all governments, wants more revenue and has empowered a private entity, New London Development Corp., to exercise the awesome power of eminent domain. It has done so to condemn an unblighted working-class neighborhood in order to give the space to private developers whose condominiums, luxury hotel and private offices would pay more taxes than do the owners of the condemned homes and businesses.
The question answered yesterday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes.
The Fifth Amendment says, among other things, "nor shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation" (emphasis added). All state constitutions echo the Constitution's Framers by stipulating that takings must be for "public use." The Framers, who weighed their words, clearly intended the adjective "public" to circumscribe government's power: Government should take private property only to create things -- roads, bridges, parks, public buildings -- directly owned or primarily used by the general public.
Fighting eviction from homes one of them had lived in all her life, the New London owners appealed to Connecticut's Supreme Court, which ruled 4 to 3 against them. Yesterday they lost again. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5 to 4 ruling that drains the phrase "public use" of its clearly intended function of denying to government an untrammeled power to dispossess individuals of their most precious property: their homes and businesses.
During oral arguments in February, Justice Antonin Scalia distilled the essence of New London's brazen claim: "You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?" Yesterday the court said that the modifier "public" in the phrase "public use" does not modify government power at all. That is the logic of the opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
In a tart dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia, noted that the consequences of this decision "will not be random." She says it is "likely" -- a considerable understatement -- that the beneficiaries of the decision will be people "with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision -- it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals' interests -- favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society's little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.
Dissenting separately, Thomas noted the common-law origins and clearly restrictive purpose of the Framers' "public use" requirement. And responding to the majority's dictum that the court should not "second-guess" the New London city government's "considered judgment" about what constitutes seizing property for "public use," he said: A court owes "no deference" to a legislature's or city government's self-interested reinterpretation of the phrase "public use," a notably explicit clause of the Bill of Rights, any more than a court owes deference to a legislature's determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" search of a home.
Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.
Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises "judicial restraint" and deference to -- it sometimes seems -- almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
quote:
After all, can't the public simply throw out of office those individuals who allow the feared corruption and nepotism? |
Because often the majority is lazy , stupid, ill-informed or simply NIMBY - it's just eleven families, and New London is a slum anyway (I wonder which poster made THAT point). Plus this will keep the taxes lower on MY house.
It's because the essence of the Bill of Rights was to protect the individual from government, at ALL levels, that Justice Thomas got this right (Must maintain focus, I'm feeling dizzy after writing this for the second time, first time for the Marijuana case). It is a very sad day, at least for me, and undermines my faith in the US system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Because often the majority is lazy , stupid, ill-informed or simply NIMBY - it's just eleven families, and New London is a slum anyway (I wonder which poster made THAT point). Plus this will keep the taxes lower on MY house.
It's because the essence of the Bill of Rights was to protect the individual from government, at ALL levels, that Justice Thomas got this right (Must maintain focus, I'm feeling dizzy after writing this for the second time, first time for the Marijuana case). It is a very sad day, at least for me, and undermines my faith in the US system. |
Actually:
1. The Bill of Rights was meant by the founders to apply solely to the Federal Level, while states could continue to, for example, discriminate by religion by having official religions. Not until after the Civil War can you really say that applying the limits on Federal power should apply to state constitutions.
2. While I have said time and time again that I disagree with this opinion, I had an intersting arguement with a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago about this very issue (he is a lawyer in HUD) and his point was that it was very hard to ever win an eminent domain case because the courst always give wide latitude to governments in their claims of eminent domain. He was right.
3. As Imran has stated, the owners will in theory be justly compensated-if property can equal money, in theory, by giving them the equivalent amount of money, you have not actually violated their property rights, as they still have their property, only in another form. I think MtG. is also correct in saying they could satill sue about the amount of compensation they will get.
And to the first point: If the first part is true, then you really have no hope and the American system is dead already, because a democracy simply can't continue if most of its members have lost faith or respect for it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Ted - it's a problem for rural and suburban areas too.
GePap, historically your statement is only partially correct. The ONLY Amendment that specifies "Congress" as being banned from an activity is indeed Amendment 1, and Amendment X preserves state and individual primacy (though not to Scalia, he only sees the state aspect and that is from a speech he made, not opinion).
GePap, I agree. If my viewpoint is correct, than there is no hope for American democracy retaining it's true democratic area, per se. I sadly stand by that interpretation, while simultaneously "praying to Divine Providence" that I am indeed wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I hate William Gibson's science fantasy. However, when it comes to predicting how society itself is going to change - damn, the man is good.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Ted - if you haven't read him, he is the acknowledged founder of Cyberpunk. Actually he didn't really found it, there were other stories of that type already, but he took all the elements and put them together into well-written format. His first and most definitive work was Neuromancer, with a well written sort-of-sequal, Mona Lisa Overdrive. I will be your local library carries at least one of them, though you may have to ask them to get it on loan from another branch.
Cyberpunk from the societal standpoint posits that mega-corporations will end up ruling the world, and they will become extra- and supra-governmental entities, essentially writing the rules and dominating the world. Sort of like Blade Runner (the movie, not the book it was based on) meets Cybernetics, the Matrix, and New Age. However, he puts together all the details, including Contractors, trying to get into the Corps to so you have it set (think Japan), and a global marketplace with big corporate players from all over the world, including a heavy fixation with Asia/Japan.
My biggest issue with the Cyberpunk, which I call Cyberbunk genre, is the New Age bit. It seems, like with the Matrix, if you are killed while plugged in you die. It seems you consciousness is really out there on the net. My scenario is that Mr. Hero gets into trouble, the Black Ice (genre term for security) Cyber Samurai/Monster/Trap attacks him - and the neural and heart rate monitors unplug him, and he gets up fine, muttering "Damn it, they nailed me again." Obviously ALOT less dramatic tension. My only issue with this is that it is supposed to be Science Fiction, not Science Fantasy.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2005 00:07
|
|