The Next Supreme

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby barfle » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:07 pm

It looks to me like there's no longer any need for taxation. They can just take your property, any time they want to, at a "price" they set. Actually, that looks a lot like property taxes in VA anyway. :( :eek:
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Jun 27, 2005 8:21 am

Piq,
I obviously bow to your superior scientific gestalt

(Ed. “Hell, you bow to the guy in Lowe’s plumbing department’s superior scientific gestalt!!!!”

Well, he understood where that valve thingie went on the pipe thingie that led into the bathroom….or was it the shower???)


I would hazard a guess that if they were easy to propagate they wouldn’t be endangered??

In England a really good patch of wild blue bells takes 100 years to establish and the Lady Slipper orchid has only been “propogatable” in the last few years. Both are protected from being collected in the wild.

It always amazed me that there were native English orchids; it doesn’t seem the play they’d grow.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:12 am

"Should we start a letter writing campaign to the Supreme Court?"

No, they're not elected and don't give a rat's a** about public sentiment; which is a good thing mostly, their function is (was?) to interpret law and protect the integrity of the Constitution.

What you can do is accept the SC’s invitation.

Justice Stephens's opinion for the 5-4 majority signals the best solution to the risk that Kelo will be followed in short order by a wave of new and objectionable takings:

”We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.”

I think now's the time to add to those existing limitations at the state and local level. As a matter of fact, a local town, Carrollton, Texas addressed a similar issues in 1998 to precludes the exercise of this power. Carrollton's citizens voted to amend its Charter. Below is the relevant excerpt from the Charter:

"Provided, however, nothing included above or anywhere in this charter shall authorize the City of Carrollton, or any corporations, agency or entity created by the City, or pursuant to the City's approval and authorization, to institute and exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire private or public property if the purpose of the acquisition is the promotion of economic development for a private business enterprise which business enterprise would own any right, title, or interest in the property so acquired." (emphasis added)

Of course, an activist SC might try to assault those laws, but I doubt it.

Get busy guys, I guarantee that several grass roots efforts are underway just about everywhere in the U.S. that harbor suspicions about the fairness of local governments. For instance, I suspect that CA, already a bastion of people with strong property rights feelings, has the most of any other states in the union.

Sometimes the land of "fruits and Nuts" leads the way, but hey, even a blind chicken gets a worm now and again.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby RC » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:42 am

Go ahead and add me to the majority here. Haggis, I am particularly struck by the e-mail you received and posted for us - brilliant and terrifying.
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
RC
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Florida

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:24 am

OT,

RE:PS. Just think, someday you may feel inclined to say I'm right about something!

You've been right everytime you've agreed with me! :D

[nearly-exploding head icon]

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:06 pm

Originally posted by Shapley:


[nearly-exploding head icon]

So what'll it take to nudge it over the top?!

:p
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Nicole Marie » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:52 pm

Speaking of state rights on this issue and an update on the New London case...

Late Friday our State government passed an agreement to re-design land right laws in CT. Our state leaders were so ticked off at the New London case that they are now changing the rules. Currently the state is looking at a new design (so far most seem to be leaning towards the rules Utah has in place). The question is now how quickly can something be passed to protect others in the future and lawyers are looking at the New London case to see if they can save the neighborhoods once the state changes the law. This would not be the first time CT has ignored the Feds and the Supreme Court. There seems to be hope...
H.R.H. Nicole Marie
Eve was Framed
Nicole Marie
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Hartford CT

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:11 pm

So perhaps this ruling was actually a subtle nudge to get individual states off their duffs to act on their own?

Ingeeeeenius..........................

:D

Hmmm, guess that liberal end of the SC ain't so bad after all.....
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:06 pm

Nicole,

Missouri is doing the same thing. The Governor is looking into tightening the rules on eminent domain in order to protect property rights.

Perhaps this lemon will produce lemonade after all.

But it doesn't let the Supreme Court off the hook. It's still a bad decision.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby piqaboo » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:11 pm

This one is interesting....
Gonna keep the lawyers busy for some time to come!
Supremes and the 10 C's
Douglas Laycock, a church-state expert and law professor at the University of Texas Law School. "Everyone can manipulate the facts," he says. "The lesson for state governments is, disguise your purpose."
What the heck, if you disguise it well enough that I cant/dont figure it out, you've probably also diluted it enough to do no harm.

<small>[ 06-27-2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby piqaboo » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:22 pm

If I promise to "develop" the Pioneer Church property to increase city revenues via public use (a kite flying park),
can I get it ED'd to me, and built a "caretakers" cottage (a mere 3000 ftsq) on it? Pretty please?????
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby shostakovich » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:21 pm

I read in the paper a couple of days ago that some of the affected New London homeowners do not consider the fight over. I have no idea what they have in mind, but I hope it works.
Shos
shostakovich
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2000 1:01 am
Location: windsor, ct, usa

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:46 am

Endangered perennials by the front walkway?
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:36 am

Parody news

The money line is "Dibs on Nevada, said California Governor Schwarzenegger."

”New York City Invokes Eminent Domain to Acquire New Jersey

Buoyed by the Supreme Court's decision to expand cities' power of eminent domain, New York City filed today to acquire the state of New Jersey for commercial development.

"New York has been facing some very difficult economic decisions," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "Building viable economic development strategies for the city has been our number one priority.

We think that the Supreme Court decision really opens a door for us, and will allow New York City to finally resolve some of these intractable issues."

The Constitution says government may take private property "for public use" if it pays the owners "just compensation."

Originally, public use meant the land was used for roads, canals or military bases, or to clear blighted areas. In today's decision, the court went a step further and said officials need not claim they were condemning blighted properties or clearing slums. Now, as long as officials hope to create jobs or raise tax collections, they can seize the homes of unwilling sellers, the court said.

This "public purpose" is a "public use" of the land, the court said in Kelo vs. New London.

"The Supreme Court decision makes it easier for us to justify this course of action in the name of economic development," said Bloomberg, "although actually we could easily have made the case that taking over New Jersey would be analogous to condemning a blighted property. I mean, come on. Have you been there lately?"

New York will compensate the current residents of New Jersey with "fair market value" for their property, a total amount estimated to be well within Bloomberg's ability to pay out of his own pocket. After evicting all current residents from New Jersey, New York plans to add a new Olympic stadium, a Trump apartment complex, international airport, and, most critically, a 4,000 square mile landfill.

"I have mixed feelings about this," said Newark resident Franklin Comstock. "On the one hand, I am not thrilled to be kicked out of my home and be paid pennies on the dollar for the privilege. On the other hand, New York is evicting our state government as well, every last official and bureaucrat. That is an immensely appealing concept."

Others are more concerned about the Supreme Court decision and New York's plans.

"The Supreme Court has really started down a slippery slope by expanding the definition of "benefit to society" which can be used to justify eminent domain ," said economics professor Brad Turkelson, of Cornell University.

"Making way for an interstate or a military base is one thing. Making way for a new golf course is something entirely different. Where is this going to stop? What if they decide that eminent domain could be invoked for the moral benefit of society? Do we want to go there?"

If New York is successful, it would mark the first time that eminent domain was used to take over an entire state. Other states are reportedly watching New York closely, and may be considering takeover efforts of their own.

"Dibs on Nevada," said California Governor Schwarzenegger.”
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby barfle » Wed Jun 29, 2005 10:14 am

Haggis, it's really hard to get worked up about New Jersey.

It sort of reminds me of my attitude while I was in the Army. I recognized the obligation to defend my homeland, but I was pretty sure that didn't include Viet Nam. I was unsure about whether or not it included Ft. Polk, Louisiana.
:roll:
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby piqaboo » Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:33 am

I'm none to interested in Nevada, but if we can apply the concept of ED internationally, I think CA should acquire Baja.

If we cant get it thru ED, how about because Mexico poses a viable threat to our security? All those maquilladoras shipping product across the border are probably just fronts for something.
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:13 pm

Piq,

It was actually proposed, during the time of Mexico's financial crisis, that they sell Baja to the U.S. I don't know if the proposal was ever officially made by President Clinton, but it was offered up to him as a means of helping Mexico out of its financial crunch.

I think it's a great idea. Mexico gets tons of money, we get a valuable strip of land to develop under U.S. laws. I don't see the down side.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Selma in Sandy Eggo » Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:30 pm

Oh, yeah! We should definitely acquire Baja. The Tijuana sewage gets dumped into the local watertable and flushed, untreated, out to sea. The shore currents flow north.

Since we get the effluent anyway, I personally would rather it were treated first. Piq's undoubtedly right about the maquilladoras. We should unionize 'em and turn OSHA loose. Meanwhile we could invite Cousin Jimmy and his Habitat folks in to deal with some of the cardboard housing developments.

OSHA and HfH could be funded by the savings out of the INS budget. The population would be instantly granted whatever legal status folks from places like Guam and Puerto Rico currently enjoy, and they could all move to Ellay unimpeded by that checkpoint thingie.

Piq and Shap are onto something, here!
>^..^<
Selma in Sandy Eggo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6273
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 1:01 am
Location: San Diego

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Shapley » Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:46 pm

And...as long as we're down that way...

Let's get that canal back! :D
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Supreme

Postby Haggis@wk » Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:17 pm

They can have the damn canal, but Baja should be doable.

Any suggestions what we should call it?? "Newer Mexico?" "West Mexico"?

Baxas?

Caja?

South California?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron