Recent Supreme Court Ruling

[andyfox]

How can any court assert eminent domain for a private corporation?

[TomCollins]

Bush really pisses me off, but its cases like these that I'm really glad we don't have President Gore/Kerry putting new justices on the supreme court.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a state case that has the appearance of violating a US Constitutional precept, is that not eligible for Supreme Court Review

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, so long as there is a federal question. My point is that a STATE taking private property does not implicate the federal prohibition found in the constitution because that provision only applies to federal takings.

[elwoodblues]

If the Fifth amendment's eminent domain clause applied to the states you would have a good argument. My argument is that it is an expansion of federal power to suggest that it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Fifth amendment's eminent domain clause applied to the states you would have a good argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It most assuredly does. Please re-read the 14th amendment.

[ QUOTE ]
My argument is that it is an expansion of federal power to suggest that it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to claim this in 1870, perhaps you would be correct.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I think being liberal blinds you to the fact it is DEMOCRATICALLY appointed judges who vote to expand federal power.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think you are understanding the case or the interplay between the local action and the federal law. The majority is leaving the decision to the states (or more precisely to the locality.) Whether the state makes a bad decision is irrelevant to whether the federal government should be telling the states what to do. The dissent (signed by the conservatives on the court) wants the federal courts to be able to tell your local government what to do.

I think you are looking at the taking and saying that is too much government power. Because you like "smaller government" you aren't concerned about which government (local, state, federal) is doing the acting, you just want smaller government in general.

[elwoodblues]

Why doesn't the right to a grand jury apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. It doesn't, in part, do to the fact that it is a specifically enumerated right in the 5th Amendment which definitionally precludes it from the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Essentially the 5th Amendment says you have A, B, C, D and E rights against the federal government. The 14th Amendment says you have B rights. It is illogical to conclude the A, C, D and E are a subset of B or else they would never have been in the 5th Amendment in the first place (as it would be duplicative of just saying that you have due process rights)

[elwoodblues]

The argument (which I think is pretty damn weak) is that broadening (or diversifying or whatever) the tax base is a legitimate public purpose and therefore takings are allowed. Note that the 5th Amendment (assuming it applies to state takings) only provides that it has to be for a public purpose.

[Ray Zee]

then maybe they need to pay triple the apprasied price when they take your property for a non public entity. maybe they should pay that all the time to make it fair. and then when they assert domain it will be for essential projects.

[ACPlayer]

Are you saying that because the fourteenth amendment does not explicitly call out: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" therefore there is nothing in the consitution to prevent a state from doing whatever with private property without subject to US constitutional review.

I suppose the state constitution would then decide if there was a state level violation.