I was surfing over at
dslreports for the latest headlines and came across this
A Sad Day For Property Owners.
The comments that got me were:
"Once again liberal Democrat activist judges destroyed the efforts of our founding fathers by rewriting the US Consitution."
"This has nothing to do with the current president. None of the supreme court justices were appointed by president Bush. Not only that, but the conservative judges voted against this, not for it. It was the liberal judges that feel the gov't can take your land for private use.
So if you are going to blame any president, blame the liberals, not Bush."
"Thank your local Democrat."
and so on...
I think the law was decided in such a way that if blight is REALLY proven then the "needs of the many out way the needs of a few.." (to quote Spock). If the federal government is REALLY trying to let LOCAL governments run the show, isn't this the right ruling? Isn't this 'states-rights' and all that? What the Republicans want?
I'm fishing for talking points...
Update [2005-6-24 14:35:56 by eAddict]:
While crusing the web for more stories I also found this interesting quote:
"Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," wrote O'Connor, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
This is from the
Chicago tribune. Interesting that they don't like the idea of another private party taking land BUT for homeland security they can take it AND people have ZERO recourse? (I'll post that link when I find it)
