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.

Pastimes : Politics for Morons – Thread Moron Political Annex -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom C who wrote (227)	6/25/2005 3:09:20 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 326

"the rights of property are left solely dependent upon a legislative body, without any restraint." A bit of an overstatement, wouldn't you say? "Without any restraint"? That would be an imagined implication of this case, IMO. Nothing I have read suggests any of the justices find "no restraint" on eminent domain powers. Also, we are not talking about "tak[ing] the property of A. and transfer[ing] it to B." The line that needs to be clarified is what is a legitimate "public use" justification for exercise of eminent domain. Does it extend to "revitalization" and "increasing the tax base" or should it be limited to traditional public goods like roads that are owned and operated by the state? What about privately owned utilities? And if we don't like private parties benefiting, does that mean no more cities can use private money to build stadiums or other large public facilities? My point remains, it is up to the citizens of the states, by amendment of their respective constitutions or by legislation made by their elected representatives, to define the legitimate use of that long established power. Or we could just dump the idea of states rights and define it at the federal level, legislating from the bench and forcing it down upon state and local governments. Wouldn't that be a fun? ;-)

To: Tom C who wrote (227)	6/25/2005 3:32:10 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 326

More eminent domain stuff you might find interesting: Message 21450123 And this: BERMAN v. PARKER 348 U.S. 26, Case Number: 22. Decided: 10/19/1954. United States Supreme Court Cite as: 1954 US, 348 U.S. 26, U.S. Supreme Court, BERMAN v. PARKER, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) 348 U.S. 26 BERMAN ET AL., EXECUTORS, v. PARKER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 22. Argued October 19, 1954. Decided November 22, 1954. The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 is constitutional, as applied to the taking of appellants' building and land (used solely for commercial purposes) under the power of eminent domain, pursuant to a comprehensive plan prepared by an administrative agency for the redevelopment of a large area of the District of Columbia so as to eliminate and prevent slum and substandard housing conditions - even though such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests subject to conditions designed to accomplish these purposes... propertyrightsresearch.org