Newest Supreme Court ruling

Indeed. :thumb:

 

Legislatures are indeed moving quickly -- in both directions. See this from Texas:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239023

And THIS:

 

The burb that I am close to pulled that stunt and it made me sick. Several blocks of small homes, owned by mostly elderly and retired people that had their houses paid off, were claimed to put up a shopping area of large chain stores. The shopping area is under construction now. The people who got their homes basically taken away got "fair market value" for them, but because they were small, older houses, the value was not near enough to cover the cost of buying another home elsewhere, not to mention the costs of moving thrown in.

To make it worse, the burb used Hospital Trust funds that legally couldn't be used for the project, but the burb did any way. They were taken to court and the State Supreme Court ruled against them on how they used the trust funds. Fat lotta good that did after the houses had already been bulldozed. Since there has to be a vote of the people in that burb to use the Hospital Trust funds for projects such as buying the homes to tear them down, the burb is now having the people vote on letting them do it retro-actively. Don't know if that makes any sense, but it is all a big mess that the so-called leaders of the burb are getting away with.

I have no doubt the developer of the shopping area is the bro-in-law or cousin of some city official and got a sweetheart deal on the land the city bought out from under the little old retirees.

Disgusting!

 

The reason for this ruling : The supreme court has no business in matters of state law, see Article III of the United States Constitution, they really had no choice here. Not to say that they agreed with it, but it is up to states to amend their constitutions to protect from these takings. If the local government did so intrude on these people for the betterment of society, that is their law, and the Supreme Court has no right to overrule them. Its really isn't a ruling on the actual case, but a ruling on what the Supreme Court can and cannot do, involving themselves in state law matters is not in their powers.

 

Note ** I think everyone should take first year law courses Torts, Contracts, Property and Civil Procedure... it helps alot understanding the chaos that is our legal system and you truly learns your rights or lack thereof.

If anyone here ever has a basic legal question (I am only a 2nd year law student) dont hesitate to drop me a PM, I already helped someone out with a problem they had on here and would be glad to do the same for the rest of the TF.com family.

 

So how does that figure in with the medicinal marijuana ruling from a couple of weeks ago, where they basically stated that federal law trumps the state laws that permit it??

 

The judicial system is out of control in this country thats how!
It is no different than the people voting and the judges dismissing the voters.
They stated federal commerce or something like that even though
it isn't a state to state thing.
Most of this stuff doesn't go from state to state that is.
Its what happens when you have Liberals rewriting the constitution.

The Internet could be next...

 

Jeez KTeam, I'm 50% through law school, and I'm reluctant to give even the most basic advice at this point! "Well, it depends..." :hihi::thumb:

 

Red, are you referring to the marijuana thing? Because the conservatives definitely steamrolled that one.

IMO, the Unpatriot Act is the only thing that even comes close to 'rewriting the constitution' (and it comes entirely too close for my liking).