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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (37135)	6/25/2005 1:44:54 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Bush May Condemn and Seize Supreme Court Satire from ScrappleFace by Scott Ott (2005-06-24) -- A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize private property to promote economic development, President George Bush said he may soon move to seize the high court under "the executive branch's power of eminent domain." The 5-4 court decision broadens the reasons for which properties can be taken under the Fifth Amendment beyond the traditional 'public use' (such as schools and highways) to include 'public purposes' such as... - increasing tax income to a municipality, - returning a favor to a wealthy developer who supported your city council campaign, - improving the view of the waterfront from the Mayor's house, or - getting rid of grumpy old people who have lived in their homes long enough. "In the spirit of the new government takeover of American homes and businesses," said President George Bush, "We may have to seize the moment to condemn some aging, faded and blighted elements of the Supreme Court. Then we can replace them with something that will serve public purposes." scrappleface.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (37135)	6/25/2005 11:24:34 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Take a deep breath, Laz, and relax. When did Wal-Mart become a public project? THAT'S what we're talking about. That's NOT what I'm talking about. What don't you understand about the word "legitimate"? And why did you choose to ignore this statement from my post? "What you describe, I would consider an abuse." That was in DIRECT RESPONSE to your first reference to Wal-Mart. "As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue." No, they don't. At least not where state legislatures and state courts are doing their jobs. Here - read this from South Carolina: Little change in S.C. from Supreme Court land ruling Associated Press myrtlebeachonline.com COLUMBIA, S.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court ruling making it easier for governments to take land for private developments likely won't have much of an impact on South Carolina, legal experts say. South Carolina law offers greater protection for landowners than federal law and that protection was not changed by Thursday's decision, University of South Carolina law professor Rob Wilcox said. "The S.C. Supreme Court was very clear in saying that even though there may be a significant public benefit to a project, that is not enough to use the eminent domain power," Wilcox said. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 in a Connecticut case, saying under the Fifth Amendment, governments could take private property for private development if the project in question met a public purpose like creating jobs and revenue. Local governments in South Carolina could use the ruling to test the state's limit on eminent domain, but any efforts to expand their authority would likely be stopped by lawmakers, Wilcox said. Several state senators are already talking about how to protect property owners in wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, said Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston. "That's the most asinine ruling the Supreme Court has made in the history of the country - worse even than Dred Scott and Plessy versus Ferguson," Ford said. Cities and other government are allowed to take property for public use. Columbia recently acquired several homes to build a community center and the residents were compensated. City officials also have discussed condemning some homes in neighborhoods in other parts of Columbia. "Blight condemnation certainly, I think, is an appropriate and public purpose," Columbia Mayor Bob Coble said. "You'd certainly have to have that authority. We might need to use it." But Wilcox thinks efforts like that would be thwarted. "The court has been fairly broad - that unless you have public ownership of the property or direct public availability, you cannot use eminent domain power," Wilcox said. "I'm not sure they will allow it even for blighted areas." And BTW, the 5th amendment only says we have the right to "just compensation" for a public taking, not what constitutes a legitimate use of the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a long-acknowledged power held by state and local governments and it is not within the power of the supreme court to take that power away from them. If Connecticut law or the state constitution allows use of eminent domain power for projects like that in New London and the people of Connecticut consider it an abuse of the power, then it is the state code or constitution that needs to be fixed. Nothing about the 5th amendment is violated unless the homeowners were denied due process or just compensation. Finally, since contrary to your rant, the court did NOT "strike down" the 5th amendment, your alarmist warning that free speech is next is just plain silly.