Eminent Domain Supersized

by 95stormfront 25 Replies latest jw friends

  • 95stormfront
    95stormfront
  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    I saw that in the news today and I think it is total BS.

    The state already has eminent domain rights when it come so Public Projects, but now a PRIVATE corporation can use the government to force other PRIVATE citizens to sell their land and homes.

    Now, any wealthy person or corporation who has the ear of government officials can forcibly take land away from people. This is just wrong.

    Is this a return to feudalism?

  • jula71
    jula71

    Don't want to toot my own horn, but I had a thread on the earlier:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/29/93090/1.ashx

    I just can't believe they would disregard the Constitution like that.

  • POs Son
    POs Son

    I live just a few miles from this city in question. The property referenced has a value of nearly half a million dollars US, and the city has offered them 1/10th that value at about $60,000. That is simply an insult. While I am not a fan of eminant domain, these folks deserve AT LEAST fair market value plus a stipend or percentage as a bonus for the relocation AT A MINIMUM.


    In addition, New London is a coastal town, and from news reports, the property being assumed is "shoreline" property. New London is a very nice historical city known for its boat building and marina industry.... this is purely an abuse of the system. Refer to a recent case in Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA where a casino owner wanted to take over a private home by eminent domain to construct a parking gargae. The home owner won this case, if memory serves me.

  • 144001
    144001

    Another bad decision from the worthless Supreme Court. At one time, this Court served a purpose. Now they're just yes men/women for King George.

  • the_classicist
    the_classicist

    I thought you Americans had property rights in the constitution.

    In Canada, technically all lands belong to the Crown, so we have no choice when the government expropriates.

  • OICU8it2
    OICU8it2

    The Judiciary arm of the government is all the liberals have left. This decision comes from the liberal arm of the Supreme Court Justices. That is in harmony with their socialist views of income redistribution and now, property redistribution. The liberal Senators are preventing the induction of more moderate, conservative inductees by their filibuster of an up or down vote for conservative justices. Hillary will get them more power in'08 to take taxes from you for the common good. By appealling to the don't haves they will get elected.

  • dh
    dh

    i think it's disgusting.

  • talesin
    talesin

    t_c

    *sigh* Our government can only expropriate for public projects (highways, hospitals, etc.), not for private development usage.

    tal

  • jula71
    jula71
    Now they're just yes men/women for King George.

    Good try 144001, but here's who voted for it: John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

    And against it was Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

    Hmmmm...the 5 liberal judges for it. Bush yes men??

    But this goes beyond right vs. left, every home owner and any worried that believes in the fundamental right of private property should be outraged.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit