View Story | 515 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
most americans were "crazy" over the Kelo case? why because it affirmed that if gov't says something is a public use, then it's a public use.
that means your home is free for the taking if gov't simply says that a development might one day bring maybe some new tax revenue for your town, city or state.
doesn't take a "wingnut" to go "crazy" over that.
Know all your enemies. We know who our enemies are. Stop Eminent Domain Abuse. End Corporate Welfare
by BrooklynBoy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
the point is, if some corporate well connected deep pocket developer with bought off bribed politicos in his pocket wants YOUR land for his mega Mall or whatever, he can simply squeeze you out with the help of his cronies in government.
You have no rights because you have no influence. Your citizenship is a "quaint" and dated document. You have no privacy, no access, and no real legal defense it's a sham.
McCain couldn't keep his words straight. The idea there is justified private takings for a bona fide public purpose is well established.
To muddle thru that and not give the defense of the modest possessions of a citizen being snatched by the wealthy and connected for NON public, rather private aggrandizement and profit is what McCain ,as usual mangled.
He is talking out of both sides of his mouth (land swap decision) on this and many other issues. that is a point damning his candidacy.
McCain: Unlike Republicans, (most)he HAS dropped bombs on a people and country that did not attack America. It fits: Warmonger
by Pete Rock on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:18:15 AM PDT
"The idea there is justified private takings for a bona fide public purpose is well established."
Kelo and the Constitution strictly prohibit private takings. (A private taking in this sense is not simply that a private developer gets the land, it is that the purpose of the taking is for a private purpose/benfit - unconstitutional- rather than a public use-constitutional. That is forbidden, Berman, Parker, and Kelo all forbid it.
putting aside what McCain thinks and what he flubbed. Liberals have no business approving of abusive uses of the 5th Amendment.
by BrooklynBoy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:39:48 AM PDT
Your analysis of the behavior of the courts is correct. However, there is something funny about this, because the Constitution contains no explicit prohibition on taking private property for private use, even without compensation.
What protects us from private takings? Good question. I would point at the much-underappreciated Ninth Amendment and the natural-law understanding that having your property taken for someone else's private use is Just Wrong.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
-5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!
by neroden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM PDT
"private takings" is the imprecise generality here.
I believe we are concur on principles, just describing it from different viewing stances. I am not a lawyer, so my "private takings" statement may mean something different to you.
The Kelo decision was to allow the state, in this case the town thru its partnership and approval of a private developer to move against a number of smaller landholders to enable a PRIVATE mega development which was a deal that meant the town would supposedly get more tax revenue than the smaller "less developed" properties. The other issues of added tax burden and service burden and ultimately costs to the town were not dealt with except as a pass thru via the judicial decision. Because the town had approved the deal with the developer, it was considered a "public" purpose.
We have a similar situation in Syracuse with 29 smaller landholders holding out against the Destiny group, for the same purpose the Kelo defendants had.
If the taking had been for a genuine public purpose, an indispensable road, a public building that was not practical in some other way it wouldn't have the controversy of the state being a partner with the wealthiest and best connected to trample the rights of the ordinary citizens.
McCains' demagoguing the issue. He doesn't defend the rights of the citizens as a whole or even the smaller as being special when the rhetoric is stripped away. The misstatement is played up as general defense of private property in a simplistic and untrue, Constitutionally speaking form.
by Pete Rock on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM PDT
Kelo asked one thing. Is economic development a "public use." The cout said yes, 5-4. But the majority and the concurring majority opinion by Kennedy described what would be a private benefit or purpose prohibited by the court's 3 eminent domain decisions - Berman, Midkiff and Kelo.
yes, McCain may be demagoguing it, on the the other hand I'd like to hear a Dem talk about the case. It's a winner as the polling afer the decision was nearly unanimously against the decision.
anway, thanks for the lesson, but not needed. I'm currently lead plaintiff on an eminet domain case that SCOTUS is considering. the case is :here. Our case is not the same as Kelo, as you'll see.
by BrooklynBoy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:33:09 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 515 comments