Newest Supreme Court ruling

Where does the Terry Schivo case comes up in that explanation?

You said that the case was deemed a state's right's issue......every case comes from some lower court. That doesn't mean when they affirm or dissent that they are referring it back to the state to decide.

If this meant nothing, why are town's all over the country discussing right now taking private land for private use? They are working right now in DC to seize homes for a private baseball park.........why was Scalia involved in the dissent if this was just a ruling to let the communities decide? It's because it just made private property a thing of the past.

This ruling has far reaching implications.......

 

That's what I said. They inserted PRIVATE USE in the 5th Amendment. You think that's right?

 

I think the Supreme Court probably looked at it, maybe will add it into the opinion, but I think they will use it as a smoke screen for the real reason, which is defering to the state to decide the case.

 

Because the Supreme Court has just showed that it is a state's right to decide whether or not to develop land for private use by taking it from private citizens. This means big money to governments, when they can level residential homes to bring in a new factory, that couldn't otherwise build there.

 

The 5th Amendment was probably used to get it to the Supreme Court, but it really has no bearing on the case, but im sure they will use it as a smoke screen, they do stuff like that to make their rulings more palatable.

 

A state's right to decide even when it explicitly violates the US Constitution of which you yourself quoted for PUBLIC use? This is going in circles......the US Supreme Court either violated the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution or they wrote it to mean PUBLIC USE or PRIVATE USE. Do you understand what I'm saying at least?

It doesn't matter what the state wants to do.....the 5th Amendment explicitly, without confusion says it cannot be done because it's for PUBLIC USE....not PUBLIC GOOD....PUBLIC USE.

 

I think you're missing what I'm saying.......it says nothing about Public Good in the 5th Amendment. I know the town would get more tax revenue from nicer houses. Hell if they tore down my house they could build and sell a nicer house and get more money.

But see, they can't do that because the city can't prove a PUBLIC USE for my house....no new road or right-of-way. What they just did though is decide that is OK for a town to take your PRIVATE property without justifying any PUBLIC USE for it and they are giving it to another PRIVATE citizen. Just because they can get more money from taxes. That is for PUBLIC GOOD....not PUBLIC USE. They rewrote the 5th Amendment to mean for the PUBLIC GOOD, PRIVATE property can be taken and given to another PRIVATE entity so we can get more money. That's what it means now.

 

Oh...I failed to mention that one entre-manure just got LUCKY and bought a bunch of land in the neighborhood and made 5 or 6 times what he paid in something like two years. JUST GOOD INVESTMENT-----NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE :cry:

 

Here's a Houston Chronicle article that pretty much sums up everything I said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3240725

In Texas, Rep. Frank Corte Jr. of San Antonio already is calling for a state constitutional amendment that would put restrictions on the use of eminent domain.

It's a strange day in America when we rely on state laws to clarify the U.S. Constitution. Yet that's all that stands between our little white houses and the parking lot.

 

Sums the whole thing up even better. Walter Williams is my favorite.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20050629.shtml

State's right's huh?

"America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance. There is nothing complex about those 12 words the framers wrote to protect us from governmental property confiscation. You need a magician to reach the conclusion reached by the Court's majority."