Recent Supreme Court Ruling

[judgesmails]

The court was wrong when they said local governments should decide these matters. At issue is The Fifth Amendment that says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The New London case expands the public use language to now include private uses. The Supreme Court is the proper place to determine public good of local governments taking property from party A and giving it to party B if party B can pay more taxes because it is a constitutional matter.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the way I see it too, Andy.

"For public use" and "for a public purpose" mean two different things.

[judgesmails]

Because the terms of the New London project involve taking property not for purely public uses (roads, bridges, parks, etc). It involves transferring property from one party to another becasue the party recieving the property can pay more taxes. This should be a federal matter because it questions the "public use" term in the Fifth Amendment.

This is one case where judicial activism would be welcome in my eyes.

[judgesmails]

They most likely don't care if the project succeeds or if it generates one extra dollar of tax revenue. I am sure the local government officials have already been greased very heavily for this and got what they wanted out of it - personal gain.

[elwoodblues]

I understand that it is incorporated into the 14th Amendment. I was arguing (facetiously) to see why the small federal government folks (the folks who, if pressed, are against the incorporation doctrine to begin with) are in favor of this ruling. The answer, I think, is that both liberals and conservatives are for bigger federal government when the actions of the government are to their liking...despite all the political grandstanding.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme Court is the proper place to determine public good of local governments taking property from party A and giving it to party B if party B can pay more taxes because it is a constitutional matter

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's only a legitimate Constitutional question if you go against the original intent of the 14th Amendment and apply fuzzy logic to the connection between the 5th and 14th Amendments...something a decent segment of our population often labels as judicial activism and/or bigger federal government.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer, I think, is that both liberals and conservatives are for bigger federal government when the actions of the government are to their liking...despite all the political grandstanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can all agree with this.

[jcx]

The court picked a great time to start repsecting states' rights.

So if it's all about tax revenue and nothing else, we really need to start looking around. My towns local library sits on a prime piece of downtown property and provides no revenue. I'm going to propose it be torn down and turned into condos. Or a porno shop. Either one will provide more revenue for the city, county and state than is currently being generated.

If the day has arrived where the wealthy and politically connected can use the power of govt to throw people off their land for alternative private use, our republic is truly dead. Welcome to 21st century serfdom, American style.

[sam h]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said elsewhere in the orginal post, my points are premised on the inevitability of state involvement in such things as eminent domain. Not only has there never been a modern society without a state holding these powers, it is also clear that a modern society which values certain things - like a functioning market economy - requires a state with these powers. Now we could debate to eternity the question of whether it is unethical that the state has these powers and whether that should be the overriding concern, but the above will still be true.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider myself a sane informed person and I not only live in the same country as you, but I believe we reside in the same general area. In my view, the reach of the state has expanded in many arenas but certainly decreased in others. And state involvement in large-scale infrastructure development and public works has definitely lessened in comparision with the first two thirds of the twentieth century, for instance. This is true at both the local and national levels. Grand public works projects like subway, bridge, and freeway construction are not nearly as prevalent in cities. And national development programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority and the many programs that subsidized the development of our own California have been scaled back considerably.

[Felix_Nietsche]

........has everything to do with government abusing their power against the average Joe Six-Pack citizen.

QUESTION: What is the defintion of eminent domain.
ANSWER: The power to take private property for public use by the state and municipalities.

In this case a local government illegally CHANGED the defintion to include taking private property for PRIVATE use. Government does not have the power to take private property for PRIVATE USE.

Once again it was EVILLLLLLLL conservative judges like Clarence Thomas that voted to protect the rights of the average Joe Six-Pack citizen while liberal judges gave even more power to BIG BROTHER.