Newest Supreme Court ruling

basing your conclusions on someone else's opinions huh ?

 

A.) This came out today.....I said the same thing yesterday.

B.) I based my opinion on a little something called the US Constitution unlike the Supreme Court majority.

C.) I was attempting to illustrate by way of Walt Williams, to a second year law school student that this was not a state's rights decision as he had said earlier but was rather a rewriting of the Constitution.

Nothing more.

 

You said it yourself, the Constitution says nothing of the power of the government to take private property for PRIVATE USE. This power is left to the STATES TO DECIDE, get it through your head. This is why the SC upheld the Penn. Superior court's decision...


All I said was that the SC may talk about the 5th, but it is a smoke screen.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about do you?....none whatsoever.


Dude if the US Constitution says taken for "PUBLIC USE" only....that's what it means for Connecticut, Louisiana or any state in the union. The US Constitution is the final arbitor. If the US Constitution has an applicable statement reflecting on the case, it is used or the court uses precendent to rule. If nothing applies, the case is remanded to the lower court and by way of not taking the case, the lower court's decision is upheld.

The affirmation did not say state's could decide what to do with Private property....the Supreme Court expanded the 5th Amendment through this decision.

 

Take a constitutional law course.... take my word for it. Talking to you about this, is like trying to talk molecular physics with my dog.

 

I'm through with this.

You're the only guy in America who thinks this decision means nothing for private property rights in every community in the country. And an aspiring lawyer at that. Whatever.......

 

ok, I'll make it easy for you. Supreme Court agreed to hear this case because one party to the case claimed that the 5th Amendment was in question. The SC agreed to hear the case just from looking at briefs and a synopsis of the case. Once they heard the case, they decided that the Federal Government ala Supreme Court did not have the right to overturn the State superior court because this was NOT A 5TH AMENDMENT QUESTION.

 

I never said it meant nothing... talk to your state legislature if you are pissed. The Supreme Court decided correctly, it wasn't in their power to overturn the ruling. If you don't want your private property taken, write your local congressmen. You my good sir, are the reason I said everyone should take some Constitutional, Property, Torts, Contracts, and Civil procedure. Step out of the ring Craig, you have been on the mat for 2 days now.

 

Then what land in this country does "PUBLIC USE" in the 5th Amendment stand for? Some imaginary fairy land that only you can see?

Find me a quote in the affirmation where it says what you wrote.......anything close to that. Please find me that.

Cause I read it and Breyer wrote that if PUBLIC GOOD can be demonstrated, then PRIVATE land can be taken for PRIVATE use. He expanded the powers of the 5th Amendment and in effect added language to it.

You're telling me that 4 Justices on the Supreme Court have Breyer's affirmation all wrong and this is really a good thing for our Republic? I'll call and tell them right now cause based on O'Conner's dissent they'll be so happy to hear it.

 

Publc use takings : I own 20 acres in BR, the local government wants to build a national park, so they take my land for a PUBLIC use.

The actual opinion won't be written till the end of the summer genius, wait till then to call me a dumbass.