Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (121831)	6/24/2005 8:02:21 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

I was trying to figure out how your criminal justice model could be made to work in this scenario, how it could be constructive and successful, how it makes sense in terms of all that we stand for and what we want to accomplish and the evolving face of war. You're a lawyer. I'm a systems analyst. I still thought we could communicate. If you and I can't communicate, I don't know who can. Don't change the subject. I'm not speaking for CB (I'm not capable of that), but I am hoping she is saying that we need the rule of law - no matter how imperfect. What do we stand for? I think you can articulate that better than I. What do we want to accomplish? You are a systems analyst. I am confident you can come up with the right answers and the right solutions. I could be wrong, but so far, you sound like you are trying to suck up to some one elses political agenda.

To: Lane3 who wrote (121831)	6/24/2005 9:10:03 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793883

Re: Kelo. The opinion is clear and the precedent is clear that the US constitution at times provides what is called a floor, a baseline, not a ceiling. That is to say, many states have stricter guidelines on what constitutes "public use" which justifies a taking than the SCOTUS. Virginia is one. Kelo doesn't do away with the requirement that a taking be for public use, and it doesn't do away with the requirement that a taking receive due process and just compensation. But it does stand for deference to a state's own determination of what constitutes a public use. I would have voted with O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas that the facts of this particular case do not justify a taking. The majority has weakened the definition of "public use" until it's almost meaningless -- arguably any time the greater number will benefit from taking someone's property, it can be taken. A few potential horribles -- taking tiny houses in urban property so that rich people can tear them down and build mansions. Taking mansions so that Section 8 housing can be put in. Taking subdivisions to build shopping malls -- which is pretty much what happened in Kelo. Any time the city planners get itchy fingers, goodbye private property. What to do? Well, the legislature could outlaw it, or the state constitution could outlaw it. Because the holding in Kelo is a floor, not a ceiling. It doesn't give any rights to private property owners who want to take other people's private property.