NEWS: Supreme Court to Rule on Right to seize Private Property

When can the government force you to sell your property for the sake of a greater public good? That's the prickly question facing the U.S. Supreme Court today in a case that could have far-reaching impact on how large real estate developments get the land they need. At issue is whether governments can forcibly seize homes and businesses, for private economic development.



For years, it has been an accepted practice to condemn houses for highways and public use however, we are not talking highways here or public use, we are talking condemning properties for private companies. What is wrong with that picture? The community mentioned is not a slum and it has thriving businesses, why tear them down for big business?

It is one thing to condemn a known slum area to better a city, however when they start taking land for the big box stores and hotels it should end. As I see it, all these developers are doing is using the government to get the land for them cheap.

I hope the Supreme Court puts and end to practices like this, they are totally uncalled for.


Related News Links:
www.signonsandiego.com
www.turnto10.com
news.yahoo.com

[edit on 2/22/2005 by shots]

Good find shots.


IMO - this case is tied in to the new Anti-Class Action legislation, and gives us a taste of our future.

Today, the Supreme Court takes up a potential landmark case that asks the justices to strike the proper balance between the right to own private property and the government's power to seize that same property for a broader public good.

Hmmmmm........so what would make this different from the property siezing of Manifest Destiny in the beginning? The controversy is happening before the act........

I'm going to take issue with the phrase, "for a broader public good." It is incredibly vague and doesn't take into account the negative consequences that could arise from such an act. If the government is going to play the "what if" game as justification for what appears to be an attempt at blatant robbery, then they should acknowledge all sides.

Companies do not have the right to sieze property that is currently owned. An in progress mortgage payment, to me, would still account for ownership as a contract is in the process of being fulfilled. If business wants more land, they should take note of the procedures that gained them their "need" and buy the land!! Taking advantage of people has become a subtle art and blatant examples like we potentially have here is not only intolerable, but bad form. Where's the pride in execution??

The courts need to do the right thing on this one........

the supreme court does not have the power to make such a ruling. No where in the consitution does it give the "black robes" the right to review laws. They have be operating outside the law since 1803. Marby v Madison and jefferson went nuts when they did this vile act. Impeach them all..........except for Thomas.........

Originally posted by DrHoracid
the supreme court does not have the power to make such a ruling.

The supreme court is there to settle disputes of the citizenry as pertaining to the legality/lack thereof in action as defined by their interpretation of the Constitution..........who/what else is in place to solve such an arguement if not the supreme court?

[edit on 22-2-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by DrHoracid
the supreme court does not have the power to make such a ruling. No where in the consitution does it give the "black robes" the right to review laws. They have be operating outside the law since 1803. Marby v Madison and jefferson went nuts when they did this vile act. Impeach them all..........except for Thomas.........

Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property for public use. Federal, state and local governments along with some quasi-public agencies (such as airport authorities, highway commissions, and community development agencies) and some non-governmental organizations such as utility companies, or a private person using federal financial assistance for a program or project, are authorized to use eminent domain.

That being the case they sure can over turn laws they find that are unconstitutional. The law clearly states Public Use it does not apply to private companies.

Always fun to watch the foxes judge the fate of the foxes, Mulder...

Some things just beg to be decided directly by the People in ballot propositions, like California. Its time for Federal propositions.

Or you can just let them take your house (what a concept).

I am with you shots...
it is a warning shot across the bow, that we need to heed...

if we don't take a stand now... the big companies will buy a few politicians and make private need = to public use...

if readers pay attention to this board, most of the recent conspiracies are about big business taking over our government to serve there needs not ours...

It is called “Eminent Domain” used to mean the seizure of private property for public use, but it was done by the city for “public good” it the transfer of property by force from the rightful owner to the government or somebody the government favors.

That is how it falls into “public good” but in reality is nothing more than thieves and liars taking the property away. Is not “public good” or “public interest” is the taking of property for private investor and big corporations to build as wish.

When properties are taking for building of highways the private sector is also get to build around the highways for corporate profits.

Its all about money. It's time something is done about it.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by DrHoracid
the supreme court does not have the power to make such a ruling.

The supreme court is there to settle disputes of the citizenry as pertaining to the legality/lack thereof in action as defined by their interpretation of the Constitution..........who/what else is in place to solve such an arguement if not the supreme court?

"Corporations" are individual entities, with the rights of "personhood." So the Supreme Court rightly is involved with settling disputes involving corporate persons and humans. ...Corporations are bigger, stronger, richer and way more powerful than any person could ever be, so the human will always lose without a Bill of Rights to back them up. ...Hey, Bush shot down the Constitution for good reason.


.

Yes corporations control about everything thanks to this.

In 1886 [Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad] a landmark decision by the US [Supreme] court recognized the corporation as a 'natural person' under law. The 14th amendment to the Constitution: 'no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property' -- adopted to protect emancipated slaves in the hostile South -- was used to defend corporations and strike down regulations.

That law is a double-edged sword. By that classification you could quite literally label a multinational corporation as a Schisophrenic, Psychophathic, Meglomaniac with extreme delusion of grandeur and is a danger to itself and the people around it and should be locked away in a padded cell. Has any lawyer ever tried this in court before? Trying a corporation as if it was mentally ill?

Originally posted by sardion2000
That law is a double-edged sword. By that classification you could quite literally label a multinational corporation as a Schisophrenic, Psychophathic, Meglomaniac with extreme delusion of grandeur and is a danger to itself and the people around it and should be locked away in a padded cell. Has any lawyer ever tried this in court before? Trying a corporation as if it was mentally ill?

Good idea. ...So far, corporations have enjoyed the benefits of personhood without the responsibilities and obligations. Maybe it's time to test the system.



marg That was an EXCELLENT find. Haven't got that reference on file, and I need it. Go marg!
.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by soficrow]

Hey but you forgot something now bush has protected them with his new law against frivolous sues.

Too late now.

Originally posted by marg6043
Hey but you forgot something now bush has protected them with his new law against frivolous sues.

Too late now.

I'm talking Criminal charges.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by marg6043
Hey but you forgot something now bush has protected them with his new law against frivolous sues.

Too late now.

I'm talking Criminal charges.

...This is why CEO's are now being charged as 'representative' of the corporation or as 'embodiments', I'm not sure. ...Until recently, neither corporations nor their employees were ever charged with criminal charges. ...Looks like it's time to push the window again.


.

Interesting you should read this link about how the Deputy Attorney General base his decisions when it comes to hold corporation on criminal charges.

Is called "Federal prosecution of corporations."

General Principle: Corporations should not be treated leniently because of their artificial nature nor should they be subject to harsher treatment. Vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws against corporate wrongdoers, where appropriate, results in great benefits for law enforcement and the public, particularly in the area of white collar crime. Indicting corporations for wrongdoing enables the government to address and be a force for positive change of corporate culture, alter corporate behavior, and prevent, discover, and punish white collar crime.

www.usdoj.gov...

Originally posted by shots
That being the case they sure can over turn laws they find that are unconstitutional. The law clearly states Public Use it does not apply to private companies.

The people of New London have momentum on their side - over the past five or six years Arizona, Illinois, South Carolina and Michigan have found that any economic benefit (or public tax/revenue benefit) does not outweigh the constitutional rights of individual or business owners to stay put.

I don't think the City of New London stands a chance with SCOTUS and these homeowners will win this - there are just too many states striking down what has become a gross abuse of eminent domain - too bad it has taken this long to come to a head.

An interesting opinion I found on this:

Dana Berliner, an Institute for Justice senior attorney, explained:

"If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business, then no property in America is safe, because anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one. We have to restore the meaning of public use to what everyone once understood the term to mean - something the public would own and use, such as a road. Economic development is not a public use."

B.

[edit on 2/22/05 by Bleys]

Originally posted by Bleys

Originally posted by shots
That being the case they sure can over turn laws they find that are unconstitutional. The law clearly states Public Use it does not apply to private companies.

The people of New London have momentum on their side - over the past five or six years Arizona, Illinois, South Carolina and Michigan have found that any economic benefit (or public tax/revenue benefit) does not outweigh the constitutional rights of individual or business owners to stay put.

I don't think the City of New London stands a chance with SCOTUS and these homeowners will win this - there are just too many states striking down what has become a gross abuse of eminent domain - too bad it has taken this long to come to a head.

An interesting opinion I found on this:

Dana Berliner, an Institute for Justice senior attorney, explained:

"If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business, then no property in America is safe, because anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one. We have to restore the meaning of public use to what everyone once understood the term to mean - something the public would own and use, such as a road. Economic development is not a public use."

B.

[edit on 2/22/05 by Bleys]

Bleys - - thanks for bringing this back on track. Sorry - I have civil liberties on the brain these days.

You, marg and shots are right - this is a misapplication of 'eminent domain.' ...and as the article says,


"The Supreme Court is really faced with a choice here," ..."If they affirm the Connecticut Supreme Court, they will fundamentally change the meaning of property ownership for everyone in the United States."


...Well, everything else has been changed - why would they stop now? If anyone wants to challenge the ruling, they have to go back to the same Supreme Court to file civil charges.





.