states fight eminent domain
- Thread starter tweeker43
- Start date
- Status
So many of the States have abused this that I wish the High Court would give it consideration to hear it again.
Wal-Mart siezing the family farm is wrong no matter if it's the law or not.
The law was meant for more serious things for "public" good such as utility, dams, power projects and roads.
The intent was very different from what it has become. One man shouldn't be able to stop progress and need for the masses, but siezing personal property for commercial interest is wrong.
Wal-Mart siezing the family farm is wrong no matter if it's the law or not.
The law was meant for more serious things for "public" good such as utility, dams, power projects and roads.
The intent was very different from what it has become. One man shouldn't be able to stop progress and need for the masses, but siezing personal property for commercial interest is wrong.
I wonder how many American citizens have reached my conclusion..... that the federal government no longer deserves my loyalty and that freedom loving citizens should abolish it, as instructed by the Founders, and start anew?
Of course, the emplaced power structure would likely be willing to eliminate illions of citizens in order to maintain the status quo.
Of course, the emplaced power structure would likely be willing to eliminate illions of citizens in order to maintain the status quo.
I'm afraid too many citizens have reached the conclusion that they enjoy watching "Who wants to be a Hilton" or whatever that lame show is called. America is ignorant and apathetic to the core.
This is one of the reasons for the second .
My memories go back to the 50's and the civil rights and prayer in the schools. I am not sure any Supreme Court decision upset as many people, cutting across party and ideological lines. I love the proposal to take over Souter's home. Maybe I need to check my states laws and fire off some emails to my representatives. Wouldn't hurt to hit the federal ones too. I think the constitution didn't ban such nonsense because the writers never imagined such an outrage happening.
And Drew may be right about many that aren't upset.
Be interesting to see if the subject comes up in the conformation hearings.
And Drew may be right about many that aren't upset.
Be interesting to see if the subject comes up in the conformation hearings.
"I think the constitution didn't ban such nonsense because the writers never imagined such an outrage happening."
exactly. We must remember the SC does not and cannot MAKE law. They can only examine existing laws and compare them to the Constitution, this is why they are called the Consititutional Court. They do not decide guilt/not guilty; they do not award damages, etc. They don't even decide moral/imoral or right/wrong: only the constitutionality of a particular existing law. The focus of many conservative groups is to return the SC to this purpose and quit the feel-good quasi-morality-rulings that have plagued the nation for 40 years.
One of the things overlooked here is that it was the same SC that noted in their ruling that there was nothing to prevent individual states from enacting laws to prevent this in the future. Which is exactly what many states are doing (with much chest puffing).
We have a related case ongoing at this point in the Houston area. In a nutshell, a small business has been evited by ED to make way for a tax-producing waterfront development in one of those small towns that thinks a big developer is their financial salvation.
exactly. We must remember the SC does not and cannot MAKE law. They can only examine existing laws and compare them to the Constitution, this is why they are called the Consititutional Court. They do not decide guilt/not guilty; they do not award damages, etc. They don't even decide moral/imoral or right/wrong: only the constitutionality of a particular existing law. The focus of many conservative groups is to return the SC to this purpose and quit the feel-good quasi-morality-rulings that have plagued the nation for 40 years.
One of the things overlooked here is that it was the same SC that noted in their ruling that there was nothing to prevent individual states from enacting laws to prevent this in the future. Which is exactly what many states are doing (with much chest puffing).
We have a related case ongoing at this point in the Houston area. In a nutshell, a small business has been evited by ED to make way for a tax-producing waterfront development in one of those small towns that thinks a big developer is their financial salvation.
What is the term for "law" that is in essence, created from previous court decisions? It's not common law I don't think. It's at the tip of my tongue but I can not remember it.
"Case Law"
I believe it's usually interpretation and clarification of existing law. Laws are often poorly written and/or unforseen circumstances happen requiring interpretation.
No, that wasn't the term I was looking for. It's probably just semantics though. Thanks XS650
Precedent?
- Status
