Recent Supreme Court Ruling

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the state is still involved, only now, with a lesser role, it is involved in such a way as to lead to more possible abuse, generally by powerful private interests over weaker ones. Yet another example of less state involvement leading to more abuses and, really, a worse functioning market economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your incredibly tortured logic seems to ignore the fact that this abuse is occuring in the first place *because of state involvement*, namely the application of the state's monopoly of force through eminent domain laws.

And secondly, you imply that somehow this case is the result of a reduced scope of government. I'm not sure what country you live in but in the USA, no sane informed person could possibly think any signficant reduction of govt scope has occurred in living memory.

natedogg

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
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)

[/ QUOTE ]

Using your paradigm, the 5th Amendment grants citizens A, B, C, D, and E rights. Section I of the 14th Amendment (the due process clause) isn't granting you have B rights, then concluding that 'A, C, D and E are a subset of B' however; it's claiming the protections of the 5th amendment (and all other amendments) extends protection of due process to all state governments, agencies, and courts.

I suppose you're right to claim that the 14th Amendment is redundant, in that the 5th Amendment contains a federal due process law, and the 14th Amendment does as well; but to claim that the 5th amendment doesn't apply on the state level because the right to a grand jury doesn't apply on the state level is clearly wrong; you're correct to point out that the Supreme Court has held that this part of the Fifth Amendment is not binding on the states, so they can use grand juries or not, as they wish. But the Supreme Court (as they did today!) has (for more than 100 years now) maintained that the last clause of the 5th Amendment ('nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.') is indeed binding at the state level. That Justice Stevens, in writing for the majority, cited precedence dating back more than 100 years should be proof enough that this standard certainly isn't a new expansion of federal powers, unless 'new' is to mean something like 'that which didn't exist at ratification.'

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It is well established that, in considering the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to cases of expropriation of private property, the question what is a public use is a judicial one.

[/ QUOTE ]

City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 444 (1930)

[lastchance]

I think a lot of people are missing that just because the court ruled that what the states did was not unconstitutional, the legislature can't ban it.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this actual precedent? If so why does the state even pretend to use "eminent domain" in the first place? Unless there is a SCOTUS precedent clearly articulating that this clause of the fifth amendment only applies to federal takings, I think you are very mistaken

Why on earth would anyone think that this constitutional right only applies to federal action?

The states do not have the right to violate habeus corpus, freedome of the press, or any of the specific rights reserved for citizens by our constitution. The fifth amendment is no exception.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

This is specifically delineated BEFORE it is mentioned that states may take latitude in all other things not laid out in the constitution. Pretty straightforward, until lawyers get involved I guess.

The tenth amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Clearly, the power to sieze property for something other than public use is prohibited by the Consitution to the states, as all the other clauses in the fifth amendment are inflexibly applied, such as the right not to incriminate yourself.

And yes, it should be up to the SCOTUS to determine if a state has violated someone's Consitutional Fifth Amendment rights by speciously misapplying the accepted standard of "public use".

In this case, the court ruled wrongly.

natedogg

[vulturesrow]

(Note, this questions isnt directly aimed at Natedogg, his was the last post when I hit reply [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Questions for all of you that lies near and dear to my heart.

There is currently a debate going on about the Navy building a new outflying field in Washington County, NC. Theses OLFs are used by Navy pilots to conduct Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLPs). Part of the debate is over some eminent domain type stuff. The Navy chose this particular site for a variety of reasons. The need for a new field is clear, but the location is the issue. Do you see this as a reasonable use of eminent domain? Or are you totally against it in call cases? Curious to see what the various perspectives are.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would anyone think that this constitutional right only applies to federal action?

The states do not have the right to violate habeus corpus, freedome of the press, or any of the specific rights reserved for citizens by our constitution. The fifth amendment is no exception.


[/ QUOTE ]
Because elwoodblues is a lawyer, and apparently, in the weird language of law, there are a lot of ways to try to interpret things.

[andyfox]

I agree it's a weak argument. How do they know the corporation involved won't go bankrupt the next year, or that the branch they open on the property in question will be a tax generator?

[andyfox]

Courts might be making the decision, but to call changing the ownership from a lower tax-generating entity to a higher tax-generating entity does not make for public use of the property.

[BCPVP]

I would be okay with this use of eminent domain because the end user is the gov't, not a private business. I think that's what's tripping most conservatives up on this (at least for me it is). The idea of the gov't having the ability to take my land and give it to Wal-Mart is scary stuff. Not to mention, this seems (to me anyway) like business not wanting to wind up not spending too much on buying off a pesky resident.