No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Thats the 5th amendment.
Yes, property can be taken for public use. If you know where to find out about what the actual property use is and what other developement is going around their, let me know. My guess is that this property is near a downtown area that is being developed. My other guess is that the city has a master plan for developement in that area and it calls for that area to be used in the master plan. The people should get what they can sell it for on the open market. It has happened here in my hometown with the two bridges that lead to Canada. The people here got more than their houses could sell for. No one ever complained.
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:How did Socialists come to control our Supreme Court?
the govt taking away peoples homes for private economic development is on the opposite side of the spectrum from socialism
Yes and no, socialism tends to do things for "the common good" even if if individuals suffer. Although this case involves private development, it is at it's base the government forcing people to give up their private property against their will. I'm guessing Kennedy was the swing vote on this one as the others tend to vote in a bloc.
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:How did Socialists come to control our Supreme Court?
the govt taking away peoples homes for private economic development is on the opposite side of the spectrum from socialism
Yes and no, socialism tends to do things for "the common good" even if if individuals suffer. Although this case involves private development, it is at it's base the government forcing people to give up their private property against their will. I'm guessing Kennedy was the swing vote on this one as the others tend to vote in a bloc.
this isnt really "the common good" though, theyre tearing down homes for private economic development, the local govt is siding with big business here. if they were tearing down those homes for say a new school or some other public building then this would be more like socialism.
on a side note, i saw on msnbc today that a lot of the home owners had decided not to leave their houses and were gonna do a little sit-in.
Cornbread Maxwell wrote:How did Socialists come to control our Supreme Court?
the govt taking away peoples homes for private economic development is on the opposite side of the spectrum from socialism
Yes and no, socialism tends to do things for "the common good" even if if individuals suffer. Although this case involves private development, it is at it's base the government forcing people to give up their private property against their will. I'm guessing Kennedy was the swing vote on this one as the others tend to vote in a bloc.
this isnt really "the common good" though, theyre tearing down homes for private economic development, the local govt is siding with big business here. if they were tearing down those homes for say a new school or some other public building then this would be more like socialism.
on a side note, i saw on msnbc today that a lot of the home owners had decided not to leave their houses and were gonna do a little sit-in.
Well, it's how you look at it. Back in the Soviet-days, somebody like Breznhev or Stalin would use it as an excuse. For instance, building Stalin's huge summer residence was somehow 'in the best interest of the Soviet people'. So even if laws like that were made to ensure public schools and hospitals would be available everywhere and for everyone, the same law can be used as a perfect excuse if you want to replace a couple of homes with a supermarket. People living under communism don't really own any property. All belongs to the central government who 'knows what is best for the people'. Even if the people don't agree with what the government says is best for them and prefer to keep their homes instead of a Wall-mart.
BTW Love the pic, Flockers!
JohnnyUnitas
Head Coach
Posts: 1392
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Yards this season: 0
Home Cafe: Football
Location: At the helm in the greatest game ever played
Man that pic says it all......Try being me, living within a half mile of land-hungry Disneyland......
Wow. So lets get this straight, the Supreme Court makes this ruling, and Bush is Hitler?
Ok, who were the judges opposing this decision, all 4 of them:
hastur wrote:She(Sandra Day O'Connor) was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
So, I'm just trying to figure out something. If only Republican appointed Justices were against this, and our current president hasn't appointed any of these Justices, how does this decision make Bush = Hitler? Really, I'd love an explanation.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Calyxes » Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:40 pm 
