Cities can take your home for PRIVATE development
"The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development."
Printable View
Cities can take your home for PRIVATE development
"The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development."
This ruling goes against the very foundation of freedom for the private citizens of this country.
This is nothing short of a communist move...
State taking control of private citizens...
When did our Supreme Court start supporting Marxism?
Call me Bolshevist Supreme! ;)
We're getting closer Hillary!Quote:
Communist Manifesto:
Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
You can thank the 5 liberal-leaning justices that voted for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
I say we oust them.. this is a democracy afterall.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn't work that way...
Extreme right Militia nut jobs are starting to look more sane by the day.... :uzi:
I understand it doesn't work that way, but after a move like this it really should.
Though I've seen the kind of thing they've ruled on go through here. Campus has been buying up Privately owned businesses and tearing them down to rebuild the neighborhood, all because the courts ruled in the Campus's favor.
Here's part of my rant I put on my site:
Many believe that this is nothing more than the reiteration of the Fifth Amendment. However, the Fifth Amendment states only that:
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 offense 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. (emphasis mine)
There it is. 2 words. "Public Use". No where in the constitution can you find the words economic development. In fact the word economy is not even in the constitution. So is it possible that 'Public Use' is now defined as private business?
These could be easily abused in following way:
You own a small bookstore. Maybe just you and your wife work there. Now, a starbuck's wants to move in. They could convince a city to take your private property so that they could move in.
You live in the house your father built. You've raised three children there are just about to retire. A developer wants to build a hotel where your house is. Again, the city takes it from you without your consent and kicks you out.
Compensation is nothing if it violates the constitution. The constitution clearly states, "Public Use". Is a hotel Public Land? Is a hotel Public Property. Is a hotel in the Public Domain?
The only good use of eminent domain is for highway projects and other public works like sewer and water lines.
I was reminded that this is also one of the goals of communism:
"Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose."
The Supreme Court is furthering the communist goals, ignoring the constitution, and are treasonous in their activities.
I strongly recommend that you right your senator/congressman and the President.
Also, try reading: "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America" by Mark R Levin.
U.S. Constitution
Just read something interesting from the lawyer defending the people in the case vs. New London...
As per the Supreme Court's decision a city could not only take homes and businesses... but they could also take churches. Clearly churches provide little economic growth for a community and what would stop a devoutly baptists community from seizing the property of a mormon temple or a mosque? In older towns and cities churches frequently own prime real estate near downtown, right?
Very Very Bad.
Scott Bullock Interview
I want to be there when they break into grandma's home, cuff her and throw her into a police car when she refuses to vacate her residence. Imminent domain for civil projects is one thing (dams, bridges, roads), but to forcibly seize someones private property in order to build a shopping mall is just plain obscene.
This is another example of the slow erosion of our rights and liberties.
I ask you this - where is the ACLU? There is nothing on their web site about this important issue. Aren't they supposed to be fighting for our civil liberties?
Not unless the Republicans came out in favor of this ruling....Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Bribo
There are still a few good Americans:
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
Tell you what, if this happens I will go and stay the weekend at this hotel.
I'll donate money to help build it!
"Live Free or Die" is the New Hampshire state motto.
OMFG. What a great idea for a hotel. No one wants to own land or work where i live, so I'm safe.
I always chuckle to myself when I see one of those license plates, knowing it was manufactured by a prison inmate.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Bribo
Talk about rubbing salt into a wound... :kiss: