You are simply wrong. Acting as if you are an expert while being wrong does not change that. You are stating that the Bill of Rights created rights for the government rather than the people.
Uh, no. I'm stating that the
constitutional authority for eminent domain originates in the 5th amendment, as the Supreme Court decided in U.S. v. Carmack in 1946, that the 5th amendment "is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power." As I clearly stated in a previous post, the presumption of the government's power of eminent domain in the British colonies at that time dates back to the magna carta.
(...and with that citation, I've already provided more tangible supporting evidence for my position than you have in this whole thread.)
Semantics, however, you prove my point here.
Taking away a business from its owner and putting it under control of the state would be consistent with Communist philosophy. We are talking about the principle, not saying that the act would make the government Communist, and further using that distinction to show how ridiculous your point of view is.
In a communist country, the business and its owner would already be under the control of the state. Communists don't take control of property via eminent domain, they do it through permanent revolution, and under communist philosophy, doing so is not "taking" anything by rather "restoring" it to the People.
Your lack of understanding of Communism aside, we've established that the principle of taking a business from its owner and putting it to public use has been a part of American governance since day 1, and recognized in the constitution, so if its "consistent with the Communist philsophy," than so were the framers, comrade.
So they didnt make an argument in the controversial Supreme Court case?
Yes it was, that was actually the basis for the ruling.
That is not correct.
Go read Felo v. New London, and then follow the citation back to HHA v. Midkiff, which the majority opinion used to decide that the courts have no standing to overturn compensated exercise of eminent domain "where the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose," and that the "city's determination is entitled to deference."
The very discussion of taking away the NFL teams from their owners because the fans are unhappy there is a labor dispute indicates that.
You are applying it to this case by using examples that are not comparable.
So you are arguing they could do it while arguing there is no basis. Wow.
That is not part of eminent domain. Eminent domain does not allow the Government to take from one entity and give to another. Yet another flaw in your thinking here.
I really don't get how you can pretend to understand the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. New London, and then directly contradict it like this.
New London appropriated the land and sold it to a developer. That is taking from one entity to give to another, and the fact that so doing does not fall outside the Court's definition of "public use" is considered the primary precedent set by Kelo v. New London.
Of course you must insult because you do not have an argument. It makes you look like a tool by the way.
Of course thiswhole statement is based upon your ignorance in the statement above.
I'm not the one making errors in everything I say.
Please show me where you looked up that the Bills of Rights gave Rights to the Government and not the people.
Please show me where you looked up the Eminant Domain allows the Government to whimsically transfer ownership of companies.
I'll ignore the lame straw man argument of your tortured misrepresentation of my argument in your rhetorical questions, and just point out that I've repeatedly offered evidence where needed, which is something you have yet to do once. Go back through your posts: all you've done is loudly declaim your superior knowledge in more emphatic and aggressive terms, without once ever offering anything to back these rapid assertions up. Talk about looking like a tool.
Well that is proven wrong because you have not, and your argument is horrendous.
Proven wrong? Please show me ONE place where you've PROVEN or even ARGUED anything, as opposed to just restating your initial claim in a more agressive tone.
You finally got one right. The problem is YOUR definiton of Eminant Domain if it were correct would result in the creation of a Communist State.
You have proven yourself wrong once again by recognizing that Eminant Domain is not a Communist philosophy, however you wish to apply it in a manner that would occur in the emergence of a Communist State in America.
Thank God you know nothing about this.
So you're saying that if the US government did something it's done many, many times throughout US history -- like it did with railroad companies when it saw fit, with utility providers, and with land in Connecticut to sell to a developer of shopping malls -- is something that would only occur in the emergence of a Communist State?
Do really believe this nonsense, or are you just trying to bluff your way through your embarrassment?
