Supreme Court rules local government can take private property...

[Fed-Up]

Test:

Thanks for the help with postings....much better





M.D.

I thought long and hard about this case because being a libertarian I know that there is nothing more precious that a person’s right to his own work and effort... i.e. property.

While studying this ruling I came to the realization that every person on this board who is pushing for less federal control should actually be applauding this case’s outcome.

With that said, here is why, this SCOTUS case just proves that the states have more power than being just administrative regions for the federal government. This ruling keeps alive a long dead notion that states have a government that is separate than that of the federal government and still have some real power within their borders.

While on the surface this case seems like a blow to private property... (After all this case rules that state and local governments have the right to take the property of one and give it to another)… it is actually a needle in the arm of state's rights.

Those who are contacting their state's representatives are doing the right thing. The federal government has no business being in the business of the state but since they did they upheld the right of the state to do so.

Remember the Bill of Rights... unless adopted by the state governments in their own state constitutions, was only a list of certain rights that the federal government could not infringe upon... not the state governments

In Barron v. Baltimore (32 U.S. 243 [1833]), the Court ruled that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland by extension. Succinctly, the Court wrote: "...the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states."

This New London case was just like the case above.... all the SCOTUS did was up hold the state's rights to ED... and nothing more

However because some states don't have explicit laws on what the state and local governments can do with the land they grab is where the corruption of allowing private land to be taken only to be given to other private owners. Thats the only difference between the New London case and the Barron Vs Baltimore one. Most states do not recongize the difference between private and public like they did in the past.

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by Demolama

I thought long and hard about this case because being a libertarian I know that there is nothing more precious that a person’s right to his own work and effort... i.e. property.

That is the libertarian thought, yes...

Originally Posted by Demolama

While studying this ruling I came to the realization that every person on this board who is pushing for less federal control should actually be applauding this case’s outcome.

If you look only at the federal control issue of this case, and ignore the precident property rights issue, then maybe. But I doubt there are many people on this board who feel that the states rights should be bolstered at the cost of their liberty.

The bottom line is that if you live in any state in America, this case is binding as precident and local officials can now seize your property. End of story.

Originally Posted by Demolama

With that said, here is why, this SCOTUS case just proves that the states have more power than being just administrative regions for the federal government. This ruling keeps alive a long dead notion that states have a government that is separate than that of the federal government and still have some real power within their borders.

Yes, the power to seize your private property!

Originally Posted by Demolama

Those who are contacting their state's representatives are doing the right thing. The federal government has no business being in the business of the state but since they did they upheld the right of the state to do so.

Do I detect sarcasm - or do you really feel like the Supreme Court is not bound to protect the property rights of the individual over the financial interests of state/local governments and private developers.

Originally Posted by Demolama

Remember the Bill of Rights... unless adopted by the state governments in their own state constitutions, was only a list of certain rights that the federal government could not infringe upon... not the state governments

This New London case was just like the case above.... all the SCOTUS did was up hold the state's rights to ED... and nothing more

So the supreme court's duty is not to issue a ruling that would PROTECT a citizen under the Bill of Rights?

And if I understand correctly, regardless of state laws regarding eminent domain, is this precident not binding on all state/local authorities?

Originally Posted by Demolama

However because some states don't have explicit laws on what the state and local governments can do with the land they grab is where the corruption of allowing private land to be taken only to be given to other private owners. Thats the only difference between the New London case and the Barron Vs Baltimore one. Most states do not recongize the difference between private and public like they did in the past.

This is why I feel that eminent domain should be done away with for good on ALL government levels, state and federal. Even if we have a strict set of rules that limit its use to public interest, it still violates the libertarian view that no individual should be made a victim due to the needs/wants of another.

The state of affairs with eminent domain now allows for mob rule, rule by the elite, or rule by the wealthy.

Originally Posted by suijuris

So the supreme court's duty is not to issue a ruling that would PROTECT a citizen under the Bill of Rights?

no because the Bill of Rights do not extend into the states as the Barron vs. Baltimore case had shown.

It wasn't until the 20th century and the grasping of straws in the 14th amendment did the Bill of Rights extend into the states.

The courts started to do "Incorporation" through the 14th amendment's Due Process clause... however the courts got to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights got Incorporated.

"While such rights as freedom of speech were clearly "fundamental," according to Justice Cardozo and the Supreme Court majority, others were not. Thus, the Supreme Court established the principle of "partial incorporation": Only certain "fundamental rights," not the entire Bill of Rights, apply to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)] By 1972, the Supreme Court had "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment all but five rights named in the Bill of Rights. Those rights still not deemed "fundamental" include the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Third Amendment protection against quartering troops in private homes, the Fifth Amendment right of grand jury indictment, the Seventh Amendment right of trial by jury in civil cases, and the Eighth Amendment guarantee against excessive bail and fines. (The Ninth and Tenth amendments do not name specific personal rights.)"

It completely undermines the states that already have their own bills of rights and it sets a presidence that opens the door for too much.
But then again what in the 20th century didn't get warped into a new meaning. FDR's interpretation of the the 10th amendment "meant that only powers the federal government didnt want were left to the state and to the people"

[Jerseee]

Gentlemen Gentlemen!

First, the Constitution applies to the fiction of government--not people. that is the problem in itself. Folks have been misled to believe that the Constitution applies to them. No, it is from us to the fiction of government. It is not there for the fiction's benefit--it is there as our rules for it. (this is not to imply that this is what you believe--I am speaking of those that use this in their defense, rather than their offense)

Secondly, I believe a land patent would solve this issue. But more importantly, I know for a fact that only people united under a common cause will definitely stop it. I for one would not move my family.

Third, NEVER ARGUE. I'd just go get a dba and list it as a developer. Start a project on the house (i.e. a deck, or something small scale) and then put a lien on the property until the work was done. make sure the lien is for the amount of the house or possibly more--its your contract. Then, you can fight from that position and not the Constitutional position. If they ignored the Constitution once they'll ignore it again. make them pay attention to contracts and commerce--I believe this to be a most viable option for fending off the bastards.

Just my thoughts

[Fed-Up]

I have followed this race to steal private property.


Live thirty minutes from New London.

Am sickened by the move made against property owners.
Rope around their necks will make an example out
of future supremes. I don't know why certain elements in our
military just don't take matters into their own hands and
arrest these oath breaking fascists,try them at Common law
and dispose of their corpses. Every military non-com/
officer take an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign or DOMESTIC.

What are they waiting for? Sounds extreme but so did

taking on the British empire 229 years ago. Gotta be a few
'good men/woman" willing to take on the wharf rats

in Washington.

[Fed-Up]

[QUOT

E=kgod999]whats amazing is the people are still stuck on stupid[/quote]
Ya can't fix stupid...