Text 13783, 62 rader
Skriven 2005-06-28 00:30:51 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 13776 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Throwing out the 5th Amen
=====================================
27 Jun 05 22:19, Ed Connell wrote to Alan Hess:

 EC> Hey, Alan.

 AH>>>> Can't state legislatures still pass laws to govern eminent
 AH>>>> domain, even after this ruling?  It's the only way to protect
 AH>>>> from unreasonable property taking now that the Supremes have 
 AH>>>> done this.  I don't know - it sure looks like the Constitution 
 AH>>>> spelled this issue out pretty clearly.

 JB>>> Yes, that is the idea though.  The states can write laws in such
 JB>>> a way that it makes it easier to seize property for "public
 JB>>> good".  The concern is that in the liberal "feel good" socialist
 JB>>> leanings parts of the country, this may become more rampant than
 JB>>> the rest of the country.  If I lived in California,
 JB>>> Massachusettes or similar, I'd be concerned and consider moving.

 AH>> The only thing I can guess is that the Justices who voted in favor 
 AH>> of the New London government felt that the federal government can't
 AH>>  keep track of all eminent domain situations all over the country, 
 AH>> and that local elected officials (who have to face the voters) know 
 AH>> better than the Feds the intricacies of each individual eminent 
 AH>> domain case they pursue.

 EC> The Bill of Rights which was just tromped on is antidemocratic.  
 EC> It means 
 EC> that if you alone hold a given opinion, you have a right to state 
 EC> your 
 EC> opinion.  The will of the voters is not to be considered when it 
 EC> comes to 
 EC> you rights to free speech, to freedom of religion, to own 
 EC> property, to not 
 EC> be singled out and dealt with in a different way than other 
 EC> citizens.  The 
 EC> Supreme Court has just ruled that the poor and the powerless are 
 EC> not safe 
 EC> within their property.  That the rich and powerful can simply take 
 EC> from 
 EC> them.  I haven't checked, but I would bet that the yeas came from 
 EC> the 
 EC> liberal judges and that the conservative judges like Clarence 
 EC> Thomas were 
 EC> four square behind the little man.

And you'd be right on the money.  The five who voted yea are considered to be
liberals, and the other four are conservatives.  The 5-4 split was a classic
case of liberal versus conservative, of the "living document" crowd against
strict constructionists.

This decision has galvanized people at the state level all over the country,
though.  I think those states that don't already prohibit "takings" will soon
pass laws doing so.  That means that we'll end up with a colossal hodge-podge
of laws that are different in each state, the very reason the Founders put the
5th Amendment in the Constitution in the first damn place!

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
LIBERALS AND DOGS KEEP OFF THE GRASS!

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)