Newest Supreme Court ruling

OK, keep thinking what you said. You're right, man you really got me and I've been on the mat.

Sometime when someone obviously much smarter than me who can speak in a slow, deliberate way to you will hopefully make you understand this case....when they do, come back and tell me you get it now and apologize.

If the same thing happens to me, I'll come back and apologize to you and I'll hire you to be my attorney OK? You'll be my attorney because you saw things from this decision that even 4 Justices of the US Supreme Court didn't see.

 

Doubt I will take the La bar, but we will just agree to disagree.

 

The developers in Connecticut aren't buildign a National Park myfriend. They just took your 20 acres to give to a developer to build homes, a Circle K and a Target.

PRIVATE USE----is not in the US Constitution.

 

Thats why its not a Constitutional question hence not in the Supreme Courts powers to overrule.

 

To get to the Supreme Court, all one must do is have a federal question, seen on its face as valid, once the case is brought and arguements layed out, then the Court decides first whether they can rule, if they can, then they decide the case.

 

I'll give you the link to the decision........

http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_property/kelo/kelo-USSC-opinion-6-05.pdf

I was wrong on one thing.......Stevens wrong the majority opinion.

 

Based on this statement, I am through talking. Just read the DECISION I linked to you. It says it all.

Later in the year.....the decision is done my friend. Pick up a newspaper and read something quickly........

 

Ok, I admit I was a tad off, but by reading the entire majority opinion, I wasn't off by much. The property on the waterfront that was in question was all purchased, save 4 lots of land. The city had layed out plans for a waterfront walk, museum, etc... plus Pfizer was to build a research facility near by as well as other private companies. The area in question was blighted, and a majority condemned, basically in the economic gutter after the Underwater Military base closed down. The plan layed out carefully by the City does not solely serve a to give all property to private industry, but by attracting these industries to an area (ghetto) by redeveloping it, its serves a larger good for the community. The underlying reason for the ruling from the Supreme Court was that the City enacted a statute making this taking legal because the statute parralleled the takings clause in the 5th Amendment. Steven's also said that regardless of the states statute, this would have been legal under the takings clause of the 5th amendment. We can see from his language on pg. 12 "Viewed as a whole, our jurisprudencehas recognized that the needs of society have varied between different parts of the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to the Nation, just as they have evolved over time in response to changed circumstances. Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the "great respect" that we owe state legislatures and state courts in discerning public needs." This shows Stevens was not ready to trample on states rights, so in order to circumvent, he just chose to say that since the state constitution "taking" clause was so parrallel to the "takings" clause in the US Constitution, then this was a legal taking. He did say, and this is where i was wrong, that it was legal under the 5th Amendment, but he also shows us the close parrallel between the 5th amendment and the State's amendment, thus protecting his back with regard to Conn. right to decide what to revamp, and what not to. The opinion also says that the door is not open to any state taking private property for private use BECAUSE there is still no bright-line test to slam the facts into and get your answer. They will take it on a case-by-case manner and look at the merit of the taking to evaluate whether or not it is a fraudulent taking... or rather a proposed taking that would be for a "public purpose". This is no huge ruling to worry about.

 

Having read the final opinion, I tend to agree w/ you on that KTeam. The ramifications aren't as sweeping as public opinion (and formerly mine) would think.

 

Last thing. Steven's said in the opening paragraph the the land in question was unblighted..........read it again.

OK you're right and 4 Supreme Court justices are wrong.