SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Wayners who wrote (51444)7/2/2005 4:37:23 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (3) of 173976
 
Neither he or the SC said anything of the sort. Do you do ANY RESEARCH before you post?

Do you know that your Prophet Bush used eminent domain to make his fortune?

Didn't think so.

"...In affirming that decision, the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens resolved a question that had surprisingly gone unanswered for all the myriad times that governments have used their power under the Fifth Amendment to ``take'' private property for ``public use.'' The question was the definition of ``public use.''

Stevens wrote that New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment because the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue. Stevens noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment had allowed the use of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted neighborhood in Washington, D.C., to redistribute land ownership in Hawaii and to assist a gold-mining company, in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906.

``Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,'' Stevens said, adding, ``Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.''

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing -- David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit...."

mercurynews.com
==== Utah passed a law doing just that as have a handful of other states.

So they:

1. Take the capitalist position that economic development is public purpose.

2. Take the conservative position for states rights.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News