US Property Rights?


mrmom2
#1
I'll post this here but it should be in police state 3
Here
 
I think not
#2
Well I have a great idea. I'll form a corporation and pick the justices homes to build factories on. Fire with fire eh?
 
Jay
#3
It looks as if the Courts were divided on the issue...
 
mrmom2
#4
I've been listening to this issue on the radio all morning and thats the best answer I've heard so far ITN One thing this should do is let you know what govement representatives are on the side of your constitution and which are not
 
AirIntake
#5
I understand when peoples houses are bought out for a highway expansion, water treatment centre, etc. But just any commercial venture? That's just sickening USA capitalist bull****.
 
Ocean Breeze
#6
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ (external - login to view)

"Property can be 'taken' for the 'public good"....

hmmm.


What ever happened to the real USofA???
 
Toro
#7
I DO NOT agree with this decision, but how is that any different from governments appropriating land for government use?

Oh BTW, I'd like to point out that the most conservative judges - Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist - voted against it.
 
jimmoyer
#8
Bill of rights: 5th amendment of US constitution:

...."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. " --end lines of the 5th amendment...

--------------------------------


Every government in the world assumes this ability.

Not to understand why leaves a shallow appreciation of the nature of society and its natural seesaw of conflict between the GREATER PUBLIC GOOD vs INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

You can deny the seesaw, but it sits in every playground, and is the nature of mankind.
 
jimmoyer
#9
You should consider the Canadian form of "Eminent Domain."

But I agree with all of you, and so does the vicious dissent of one Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor.

The issue complicates itself on that gray line of the Greater Public Good vs the right of the Individual.

This town govt made the case that tax revenue generated by development in this location would bring far greater benefit to the whole town than just respecting that individual's property rights.

If you think beyond just this narrow headline, you will consider this case to be the ultimate metaphor describing all government's positioning of the Greater Public Good vs the individual's rights.

It is a battle that will never end, not only in autocratic systems but also in democratic republics everywhere.
 
mrmom2
#10
This is very interesting
 
TenPenny
#11
There was a case in Toronto, where the corner across from the Eaton Center was recently expropriated and turned over to a private consortium in order to build a commercial development. The rationale was that the new development was better for the city than the existing shops.
 
Jay
#12
If they do that sort of thing, the government should have to pay 1.5 times the market value. That would help keep them from doing it for fun, and allow compensation for capital gains...
 

Similar Threads

29
2
Katrina - what happens to Property
by Karlin | Sep 7th, 2005
no new posts