Cities may seize homes

[DJ]

Re: Cities may seize homes

states can appprove laws that supercede this decision. That to me is where the energy needs to be..

Agreed. However, it STILL depends on us, as voters.

 

[DJ]

Re: Cities may seize homes

tcube,<br /><br />There you go. Four from liberal democrats.<br /><br />I consider Bush 41-a democrat, or, at least an appeaser.

 

[tcube]

Re: Cities may seize homes

DJ,<br /><br />OK - so B Sr. you consider a "dem" - that's 3 liberal dems. How about the Reagan and Ford appointees? Where'd they go wrong?

 

[eeboater]

Re: Cities may seize homes

I wonder if this will finally be a wake up call to everyone who has been blind to the fact that the Judiciary is out of control in this country. Why do the Dems keep blocking Bush's nominations? Because they realize the only way they can get their agenda pushed is through the court system.

 

[DJ]

Re: Cities may seize homes

tcube,<br /><br />RR was an "honest" man. He "trusted" people, to his demise, in many areas.<br /><br />Remember, Dem's ruled the Senate and House, in that era. The Pres. does not spend money (unless you are Pres. B. Clinton via Exec. order-at midnight), the Legislative branch does. A lesson NOT taught in government schools.<br /><br />RR trusted his advisors, he may have been duped or mislead. Plus, a "no fear of repraisal" guarantee for the judges (Supreme) may have changed their tunes. The Supreme Court is desperately out of touch with society-for good or bad, depending on your views. They are kings/queens with no repraisal.<br /><br />The founding fathers did not count on extended life spans when they said judges should be appointed. Senility, self importance and "kingdom" did not enter into the picture, in those days.<br /><br />What a bunch of coddled sycophants. That includes the Senate and House.<br />Again, people are people.

 

[DJ]

Re: Cities may seize homes

I wonder if this will finally be a wake up call to everyone who has been blind to the fact that the Judiciary is out of control in this country. Why do the Dems keep blocking Bush's nominations? Because they realize the only way they can get their agenda pushed is through the court system.<br />

I doubt it. Plus, WHO will ever know, or worse-GET IT! Listen to a "man on the street" interview, with anyone.<br /><br />A frightening majority of the pople in this country have/know:<br /><br />1. Never voted.<br /><br />2. Don't know who our VP is.<br /><br />3. Don't know who the Sec. of Defense is. (frightening post 9/11)<br /><br />4. Don't know their State and Local Rep's.<br /><br />As said, we get/got what we deserve.<br /><br />As one can tell, I am PASSIONATE about this apathy issue. If one reads history (not recent re-written) one can associate the ills of our society to those of the Greeks, Romans, etc.<br /><br />Those societies suffered the same ills, as we do.<br /><br />Those being:<br /><br />-Sexual freedom.<br /><br />-"No Fault" behavior.

 

[rogerwa]

Re: Cities may seize homes

It is not only our duty to vote, but it is our duty to understand the facts around what we are voting on. All to often the mass public is fed less than fact based opinion that influences the voting outcome. Ignorance is not an excuse.<br /><br />The fillibuster issue is a prime example of how the public has been fed a pile of crap. the senate makes their own rules for operation. The fillibuster is one such rule. There is nop constitutional provision for it.

 

[Drowned Rat]

Re: Cities may seize homes

DJ, I understand what you are saying about voting and I know there are many people out there who don't vote and then whine about things, but I had not even heard about this until now. I'm pretty good at keeping up on events and the first I hear of it the Supreme Court is voting on it. I would like to learn more about why the justices that voted yes think this is appropriate. <br /><br />Also, surely there must be some guidelines as to what kind of businesses can utilize this rule. I mean, what if they think my property is the perfect place for a putt-putt course? And then, what if I said, hey, I'll build a putt-putt course here just so I can keep the property. Can I do that? Or do they just give it to whoever asks first? It's an unbelievable concept really.

 

[JasonB]

Re: Cities may seize homes

Communism was a good word to describe this decision. I'm really starting to wonder if a number of the judjes in this country have ever read the Constitution they are sworn to uphold...

 

[DJ]

Re: Cities may seize homes

DR,<br /><br />As mentioned, this is very much a local issue, yet, nationwide.<br /><br />Phoenix politicians, led by our Gov., are hard at work on this one.<br /><br />This is simply a way for the politicians to "gain ground" through the likes of "big business". Of which we've been TOLD to hate.<br /><br />I'm not apologizing for big business "socialist types", they're out there.<br /><br />Most big businesses are squeaky clean on these subjects. Yet, there are those that, by politicians, get their way. <br /><br />America West, comes to mind.<br /><br />Why, on earth, do we want this airport (Sky Harbor) in the middle of the city? It's a pollution generator-BIG TIME. Yet, it's a HUGE cash cow for the City. Go figure.<br /><br />I'll vote for anyone that does not cowtow to the big government mantra. But, that requires a groundswell of people, like me/you, to get those persons in office.<br /><br />John McCain is a "sellout" by any stretch of the imagination. I know this hits nerves. He is a hero and all that, but "hero" status should not protect one from being a sellout. His wife Cindy (Hensley & Co.) is the sole Anheiser/Busch distributor for Maricopa County, Talk about a license to print money. Her views are "leftist" to say the least. I think he owes her and family, "big time".<br /><br />John Kyl, on the other hand, is a balancing act. While I do not agree on all his views, he is a solid citizen and a deep thinker, unlike McCains, "shoot from the hip, please the media 'Maverick' " style. He's NO maverick (McCain), he's a sellout. McCains views on immigration are a true telling. The latest on Durbins comments should be a clue.<br /><br />I also hold Kyl responsible for his "apathy" on the immigration issue. The rest of the country has no clue as to the groundswell that is overwhelming us-to their lifestyle demise.<br /><br />I've let him know that too!<br /><br />We, as citizens, MUST vote. Let's get these career politicians, out of office.

 

[DJ]

Re: Cities may seize homes

By the way Folks. <br /><br />E-mails to your politiians carry NO weight. They see e-mails as, "cranks".<br /><br />A carefully crafted letter (a real one-envelope, stamp, etc,) scares the bejeebers out of them.<br /><br />They see a "real" letter as being-"SERIOUS".

 

[Drowned Rat]

Re: Cities may seize homes

Good advice, DJ. I might just sit here at write a letter right now!

 

[Parrott_head]

Re: Cities may seize homes

Originally posted by DJ:<br /> By the way Folks. <br /><br />E-mails to your politiians carry NO weight. They see e-mails as, "cranks".<br /><br />A carefully crafted letter (a real one-envelope, stamp, etc,) scares the bejeebers out of them.<br /><br />They see a "real" letter as being-"SERIOUS".

I can attest to the above quote.<br />A politician I knew and respected told me that someone who sits down and crafts a well researched letter stating his position has made an emotional committment to an issue. This person will much more likely to appear at meetings and ask tough questions. They will also send letters to the editorial page of their local papers.<br />E-mail, sign and send cards and similar forms of communication carry little weight since the sender has made no real investment of his time or energy.<br /><br /> Find your Congressman!<br /><br /> Who is my Senator?

 

[inthesticksnow]

Re: Cities may seize homes

DJ,<br /><br />It wont make any difference to lament over the fact that most people don’t vote or care… the ones who do pay attention, on either side, are the only ones who matter.<br /><br />That more than 50% of the citizenry doesn’t vote or pay attention, it testimony to the fact that life in this country is pretty dang good… especially when compared to some of the burgeoning Democracies in Eastern Europe and especially, Iraq and Afghanistan. <br /><br />I agree with eeboater 100%. That’s the problem, and it will be resolved. Supreme Court decisions can be over turned, and many will IMO once we get a Judiciary whose understanding is that they need to interpret the laws, not make them as they go. And the only way that court will change, is by focusing on the few who do pay attention and care, and try to persuade them, because it is they in the end who will make the difference.<br /><br />If anybody has anyone in the back pocket, the Dems have the Judiciary, and it is through the Judiciary that the Dems get their laws… not through the Electorate. It doesn’t matter if everyone votes, so long as the Judiciary can just flip us off like they do.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Cities may seize homes

With-in the past month the Supreme court interpreted that the 10th ammendment (States Rights) was trumped by convoluted interpretation of the "interstate commerce clause". It was convoluted because medicinal Marijuana was overwhelmingly approved by the California voters.<br />The marijuana was grown locally and sold locally to local users that were 100% in compliance with state law. None, zip, nada, of the facts brought before the court had anything to do with "interstate commerce". The court essentially invented a reason to ignore a tenth ammendment issue.<br />And it was the current Bush administration that sent it to the Supreme court.<br />Yet the so called "representatives" mostly liberal Democrats, some Republican that represent Californians in Washington, not a peep from any of them.<br /><br />Here the court ignores the 5th ammendment. Blatantly ignoring the founders intent. It goes much further than the intent of the 5th or the 10th ammendments. It actually smacks the whole and complete intent of the Constitution, our founders Constitution.<br />This positive intent, spirit, and purpose was simply to limit governments power. <br />We see now that the current intent is to increase governments power over it's citizens.<br /><br />We surely can't blame Walmart. And it's foolish to blame one political party over the next. As usual big money is well represented in Washington.<br />Here too at most we'll get from our "representatives" is lip service, if that. None will make reference to our founders belief in a small limited government, one with very clear and specific limited power.<br /><br />Socialism isn't creeping into our lives anymore. It's at a full gallop.<br />Haven't you noticed we aren't called "citizens" any longer? We're now known as "consumers."<br />Not long ago I would've been comfortable knowing that as this crazyness overcomes America, all the forieners would finally understand what the Second Ammendment was really about.<br />But that's a foolish thought. Because as sure as I'm writing this, next election you all will be argueing over a "red" or "blue" candidate while a "red, white and blue" candidate will be told by the circus masters will be a "wasted vote".<br /><br />Times like this I'm disgusted at all of us.<br /><br />This ruling means that your local community has the permission from the court to do this if they desire. It doesn't tell them they should.<br />I think the time is right to start communicating with our nieghbors. Organize and fill local City and County halls to standing room only. Press our very local representatives into adopting local ordinances that prohibit this type of "private seizure".

 

[rwise]

Re: Cities may seize homes

Face it, it's all about the money. They don't care what you or I think or want, as long as the money leaves our hands and is placed in theres! If you ask me it's stealing, some times from those who have worked hard, voted paid taxes all there life. About 20 years ago, Tulsa forced an elderly friend of mine to sell her home (built by her departed husband) and land to them for a highway to go through. She was 95 at the time, they told her the house could not be moved and would be torn down. She was put in a home (yes her family should have helped) where she died at 105 years old. They sold her home to a house mover who moved it. The highway has to this day not been built. This is just one instance, but I'm done.<br />Freedom, I now some people who are free, the roads are bad, but they live as they want do what they want when they want, they don't work, they don't pay (much) in taxes, and they are about to be ran over by the growth of the city where what they have will be gone. OK I said I was done.....

 

[Stratosfied]

Re: Cities may seize homes

Skinny, I was waiting to bring up the issue of the 10th admendment ruling a few weeks ago. It seems to me like that they are interpeting the law as they seem fit. Why is it ok to grant, Constitionally granted, mind you, allowances, for want of a better word, provisions for one admendment over another??? Friends we all need to wake up and smell the coffee.<br /><br />I was under the understanding the each State was a Soverign entity, under the umbrella of the UNITED States of America. The Interstate Commerce Act, IMHO, was to not allow for , say, to buy clothes or furniture in a neighboring state and then to pay taxes again on it in your home state. <br /><br />It is no ones fault in particular, other than the apathetic in our midst.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Cities may seize homes

It seems like the Constitution is pretty clear on this topic. The states can and do have the power of condemnation that the Court said they did -<br /><br />NATIONAL EMINENT DOMAIN POWER <br /><br /> Overview <br /><br />''The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.'' 160 Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.'' 161 In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, 162 and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States 163 any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power, 164 but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wide- ranging that vast numbers of objects may be effected. 165 This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. 166 Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State. 167 <br /><br /> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

 

[wvit100]

Re: Cities may seize homes

And there is plenty of historic cases where the court had previously ruled for the states power to take property for public use -<br /><br />''For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end.'' 183 Traditionally, eminent domain has been utilized to facilitate transportation, the supplying of water, and the like, 184 but the use of the power to establish public parks, to preserve places of historic interest, and to promote beautification has substantial precedent. 185 <br /><br /><br />The Supreme Court has approved generally the widespread use of the power of eminent domain by federal and state governments in conjunction with private companies to facilitate urban renewal, destruction of slums, erection of low-cost housing in place of deteriorated housing, and the promotion of aesthetic values as well as economic ones. In Berman v. Parker, 186 a unanimous Court ob served: ''The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled.'' For ''public use,'' then, it may well be that ''public interest'' or ''public welfare'' is the more correct phrase. Berman was applied in Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 187 upholding the Hawaii Land Reform Act as a ''rational'' effort to ''correct deficiencies in the market determined by the state legislature to be attributable to land oligopoly.'' Direct transfer of land from lessors to lessees was permissible, the Court held, there being no requirement ''that government possess and use property at some point during a taking.'' 188 ''The 'public use' requirement is . . . coterminous with the scope of a sovereign's police powers,'' the Court concluded. 189

 

[20/20]

Re: Cities may seize homes

I do agree we need/should vote but the bottom line is money talks. Big business and money will still come out ahead. The common Joe will not beat a corporation or government when green stuff is involved. The folks here that say our freedom is being replaced by money hungry ----- are absolutely 1000% correct. I know/have known many old time VETs{WW1 korea etc...} that choose not to vote anymore because they are fed up with loosing what they fought for. We could vote in whom ever we want but in the land of money we won't get the results we want. America is changing and change is good, BUT when greed is in charge watch out for china kicking are a**es and becoming the New World Power. You guys can laugh at me and say I've lost my marbles but I have lived long enough to see what is reality. Instead of worrying so much about greed and BS we should bring back the meaning of America the land of the free.