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 (37141)	6/25/2005 3:29:48 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I'm sure they didn't even begin to conceive of the kinds of public projects we see as commonplace (and appropriate) today, much less how private money could be used to make building them affordable for local governments. And I'm sure the 5th amendment neither grants nor defines that power of states. It takes it as a given - a power understood to be held by governments - and merely states that those whose property is so taken must be justly compensated. BTW, you might be interested to know that this is not the first time the SCOTUS has deferred to the states on what is a legitimate use of eminent domain powers. It ruled on a 1967 Hawaii land reform law that the state legislature DID have the power to transfer property from the large estates that used to own all of the land there to the individual tenants occupying the land. In ruling, they cited an earlier case, Berman v. Parker (1954), quoting that decision as follows: "Subject to specific constitutional limitations, when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation, whether it be Congress legislating concerning the District of Columbia ... or the States legislating local affairs …. This principle admits of no exception merely because the power of eminent domain is involved."

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (37141)	6/25/2005 3:35:52 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Respond to of 90947

Further to the issue: 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