All_Around_Brown

Mr. Souter, thanks to your decision in Kelo vs. New London, whereby you allowed the state to take peoples homes for corporate profit, we now have amended our constitution in NH to prevent you from losing your mansion (Lost Liberty Hotel).

Thanks David, your bad decision opened our eyes. Your home is now safe.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pujo

Except the Feds could still take it, not being bound by the NH constitution.

sdaniels7114

Its unfair to pick on the Supreme Court for limiting the federal government's power. The Supremes never said that this was a good thing. They said that it was something that the Feds had no business deciding. Blame Connecticut, first this totalitarian land grab and then they send Lieberman the turncoat back to the Senate. Not to mention their attempted theft of the Pats.

All_Around_Brown

Good points both. Im surprised how little traction this issue got among self-proclaimed conservatives. This is another indication how far the cons have come from their roots. How did that happen?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DarrylS

Maybe I am missing something here, but doesn't a Supreme Court decision rely on the majority to decide something, Souter may have written it (or more than likely a law clerk wrote it), but a majority of Justices have to agree. If they do not agree then it becomes a dissenting minority opinion. Why blame Souter, or is this another RW talking point???

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Patters

Here's a pretty good short article on eminent

domain:http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html

I've never shared the view that private property is so sacrosanct that it should always supercede the legitimate needs of the community. If a city government want to get rid of a junk yard to build a private nursing home, I don't think I'd be against it. If a private daycare center wants to expand, but there's private home in the way, I don't think I'd be against that either. The key is there must be fair compensation and an adequate appeals process. That said, the New London example was one I would have opposed, since there seemed to be no good reason why eminent domain had to be used.

Real World

Well then where do you draw the line? When is stealing someones private property acceptable and when is it not? If you can steal it for a nursing home, then can you steal it for a Wal-Mart? What is the difference? Ultimately the justification for said theft would have to be based on it being to the benefit of the community right? Well one could argue that a Wall-Mart would bring in more jobs, more commercial property taxes, and higher consumer traffic versus a nursing home. My point in all of this is principle. Once you begin to stray from the principle of eminent domain you are permitting the theft of personal property for reason none other than monetary profit. For greed. I for one would understand scenario's by which a city or town may very well need to hijack a property for the sake of the community (maybe threatening to take over an abondoned crack house in the heart of a neighborhood), but once you start forcefully taking it to build a Wal-Mart you loose me.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

I think our system has built in checks and balances. In a conservative area, it's unlikely that eminent domain would be used to give private property to a private business. If that happened, those politicians would be thrown out. In a liberal area, it's more likely that private property would be taken and given for a worthy private cause. Using your example, I would think the crack house would have more protection against eminent domain in a conservative area, especially a libertarian one, than a liberal area. And like I said, there needs to be an effective appeals process. If the government came in and tried to take my home so that a WalMart's could be established, I would fight it tooth and nail, and to do so, I would have to understand the merits of the government's action.

Pujo

I always see liberals bringing up the point of local control & community standards... but only when it comes to eminent domain. If it's OK to take away peoples' houses in liberal areas, why shouldn't it be OK to discriminate against minorities in conservative areas?

The reasoning against eminent domain is the same reasoning against government intrusion into marriage: civil rights (which include the right to own property) should not be subject to the whim of a majority.

Patters

If you can make a case why discrimination might be better for a community, you'd have a point. I believe, as most Americans do, that discrimination hurts America. I think you badly misunderstand the civil rights movement if you think it's only about about protecting minorities. Civil rights has made the country better for all of us, and I would think an immigrant (which I think you said you were) of all people would understand that. By protecting a minority group, gays for instance, we also protect their family, reduce violence, build communities, creates new opportunities, and so on. Didn't you once imply that you're an immigrant? Maybe I got it wrong, but those I got new for you if you are one: those of us who support immigrant rights do it not as some form as noble charity, but because we think it's better for America.