USSC Approves Property Seizure for Private Use!

[gtalum]

[nope. at any time 5 judges can tell the country the 2nd amendment is void

And there's nothing they can do about the ones I already have.

[rainstorm]

So that's one case. I said "usually".

Brown v. Board of Education

Roe v Wade

Bush v Gore

All three of these are cases of the rights of individuals being considered inalienable.

no issue so frames the issue of judicial activism better than this does. its disturbing that the population is going to just accept it. any right can and will be voided at anytime 5 judges see fit to do so

[rainstorm]

[nope. at any time 5 judges can tell the country the 2nd amendment is void

And there's nothing they can do about the ones I already have.

use the power of govt to put you in prison?

[feederband]

This is a direct threat to my property. MINE. For the sake of someone else to have it. Not the government but someone else!!! This is ludicrous. I have never felt this way toward the United States Government. NEVER!!! people need to go ape s**t on this one.....

[gtalum]

use the power of govt to put you in prison?

If they ever come for me, I'm taking a bunch of them down with me.

[BUD]

What will happen if your still paying on the land and the city wants it??Lets say you owe the bank $60,000 on a house will the city still pay it off or what would happen????

[rainstorm]

What will happen if your still paying on the land and the city wants it??Lets say you owe the bank $60,000 on a house will the city still pay it off or what would happen????

one thing is certain. every govt official in america is now pouring over city maps to find which private property to confiscate and give to someone else so the govt can collect more tax money.

[BEER980]

You're right. The second amendment is down. This along with the (un)PATRIOT(ic) Act pretty much does away with the 5th. I wonder which is next.

How is the second amendment down? It was put there to protect all the other ones.

[Stephanie]

there is a way to amend the constitution, through the legislative process. does anyone think this garbage would have passed if the people had a chance to voice their opinion on this through their elected representatives?
no chance

I don't even trust the elected stiffs to write and pass laws that mean anything. Santorum's bill is just one example. We've been passing laws for years that only appease a few and not necessarily do the right thing.

[SouthernWx]

I don't even trust the elected stiffs to write and pass laws that mean anything. Santorum's bill is just one example. We've been passing laws for years that only appease a few and not necessarily do the right thing.

Sadly I agree Stephanie. As I told some friends at another forum today, this isn't a liberal or conservative issue....it's a matter of RIGHT vs WRONG. To force anyone out of their own home is wrong....to do so to an elderly person is even worse.

This kind of ruling, along with some other equally disturbing things I've witnessed in recent years makes me honestly wonder and worry about the future of this nation. It's bad enough to not know right from wrong, but to know something is wrong, yet do it anyway is far worse. I've always believed a nation without a conscience will never not stand....we are sadly heading down that slippery slope to ruin.

**And a breaking news story late tonight is only another indication of what I'm referring too.

Suntrust bank employee arrested in Atlanta suburbs for selling customer info (S.S.#, bank account numbers, etc) to outside co-horts, who hired "check runners" to cash fake checks all over the place; many Suntrust customers ripped off for thousands, including an 82 yr old woman on oxygen. When you can't trust bank employees, the cops, judges, priests/ ministers, or your kid's teachers...who on earth can you trust?

Perry

[gtalum]

What will happen if your still paying on the land and the city wants it??Lets say you owe the bank $60,000 on a house will the city still pay it off or what would happen????

they have to pay "just compensation". At worst, this can be interpreted as "fair market values". In the vast majority of cases, any amount owed will be more than covered. However, it could be scary in that many Ametricans leverage their home equity to 100% or more. If that property drops in value, they could be left owing on amortgage even after a city takes their land and pays fair market value.

That said, "fair market value" does not tkae into consideration any sentimental values.

[feederband]

I bet Walmart just loves this........................

[Terry]

This decision really does piss me off. It is totally absurd.

We should all go have a sit-in at those remaining homes!

[kevin]

We need a constitutional convention my friends.

You may find this military of ours, this standing army which we are made to love and support, can be a force of oppression greater than we imagine. Revolution is impossible, but the revolution was fought on these terms:

That a distant capital would not be able to decide the rights of Americans.
That we would have a chance to grow and prosper, to decide our own laws.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean nothing when our property can be seized without consent.

The consent of the governed! Inalienable rights! That majority rule could never take away the right of the dissenting minority.

Never. Never. Never. When the government starts taking from the weak, plundering wealth and redistributing it, taking rights in the name of the common wealth, it has become a tyranny.

Robert Mugabe is an enemy of democracy which would be bad enough, but his crimes go further. His police are destroying the gardens of the urban
poor. His bulldozers are knocking down the shacks of the poor. This is
done without compensation, this is done as a political weapon. As such
Robert Mugabe is no longer a strongman, he is now and forever a tyrant.

I wrote that a few days ago and did not know that my government might be moving in the same direction as an African dictatorship.

This should be opposed everywhere. The law cannot be inconsistent, you cannot decide on the bench something which goes against the constitution, you cannot decide that the constitution says something different from what it represents. Our rights were numbered, but there it says that we hold rights which are not written. The right of the American to have property and not sell it are constitutional, and if they are not constitutional they SHOULD BE. This is representative government, consent of the governed.

I do not consent to this law.

[feederband]

[Terry]

No. I don't support a Constitutional Convention. Anything can occur at that point and there are too many crazies on either end of the political spectrum for me at this time!

IMHO, the sensible moderates need to take back this country.

[kevin]

If not a constitutional convention then a constitutional amendment. Something has to be done, the supreme court cannot let local governments steal land to pave the way for private use. That is against the spirit of American democracy.

[earthquake~weather]

an awful decision indeed

imho, this isnt a partisan issue at all.....and its not the only one that significantly crosses party lines. someone explained it to me this way once, and it made sense to me....

each party is divided into two camps: the pro-freedom camp, which wants to see as little government interference into private life as possible, and the pro-"safety" camp, which doesn't mind significant government interference as long as that interference is for what they consider to be the greater public good (be that physical safety, economic security or moral correctness).

the modern republican party is very much pro-"safety", which is why many people within the party disagree with many parts of its policy, such as the significant government growth under its watch, the patriot act etc. and if "safety" leaning democrats were honest with themselves, they would find themselves agreeing with a handful of this administrations policies despite themselves...

the medicinal marijuana case is another one that split the court along similar lines....safety liberals and safety democrats were both willing to give the government power over state law in the name of interstate commerce (something i thought was ridiculous), and freedom liberals and republicans voted against the increase in government power, even if they were unsure of their feelings on medicinal marijuana (look at thomases opinion in that case - he dissented, and he is a conservative if ive ever seen one).

personally, i am pro-freedom ....borderline libertarian at times, at least on social issues.... and the idea of giving the government the power to claim any property they want at any time .....well, i cant tell you how mad that makes me....

any opinions?

[Terry]

If not a constitutional convention then a constitutional amendment. Something has to be done, the supreme court cannot let local governments steal land to pave the way for private use. That is against the spirit of American democracy.

I agree with that, Kevin. But just not a Constitutional Convention. That is a huge can of worms.

May be the opposition to this decision will give us some unity, if only briefly. What an idiot and dangerous decision. Grrrr.

[Terry]

There is a very good ongoing dialogue on this decision on TPM Cafe:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/23/173419/170