Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Our rights continue to be eroded. Whether it's the 2nd Ammendment, 4th ammendment, Patriot Act...
    The counter argument to this is that we never had such broad rights (as you mentioned above) in the first place. If that is the case, no right has been eroded, just more defined. (I know you don't like that one either).

    there aren't enough tea bags or a big enough harbor for me at the moment.[/QUOTE]LOL
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Again, you say its contrary to the 5th amendment but that in itself requires an interpretation.
    Interesting concept. Is the SC's role to "interpret" or to apply? The legislative branch is where rules are established. The judicial is intended to mediate when a party is accused of violating one of the rules. In such case, the court need not interpret the rule, but rather evaluate if the rule has in fact been broken.

    I suppose if the legislative branch is generating vague rules, that empowers, if not outright forces, the judicial to interpret. hmmm
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    The counter argument to this is that we never had such broad rights (as you mentioned above) in the first place. If that is the case, no right has been eroded, just more defined. (I know you don't like that one either).
    You don't think?
    2nd Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You live in the same state I do...what if I want a Barrett Light .50? Apparently, I do NOT have that right. I'm not a criminal, and I can certainly handle one.

    And you're going to tell me that the Patriot Act doesn't have some serious conflicts with my 4th Amendment Right: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interesting concept. Is the SC's role to "interpret" or to apply? The legislative branch is where rules are established. The judicial is intended to mediate when a party is accused of violating one of the rules. In such case, the court need not interpret the rule, but rather evaluate if the rule has in fact been broken.

    I suppose if the legislative branch is generating vague rules, that empowers, if not outright forces, the judicial to interpret. hmmm
    You bring up the crux of the argument between judicial activism (loosely interpret) and judicial conservatism (strict constructionist).

    I listened to a free audiobook where Justice Scalia talks about his stance on interpreting the constitution (hes a strict constructionist). Not like you couldnt figure that out by his opinions.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    You don't think?
    2nd Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You live in the same state I do...what if I want a Barrett Light .50? Apparently, I do NOT have that right. I'm not a criminal, and I can certainly handle one.
    Easy Mr Ranger...I have shot a few .50 cals in my day (mounted on Humvees of course...love that butterfly trigger...not your over the top sniper rifle ) Doesnt the Geneva convention still prevent shooting that at a person

    The 2nd amendment argument has been played before. The 'against' argument is that you are missing the first part of the amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " Many anti 2nd amendment people argue that the 'correct' interpretation is that as a militia, you have right to bear arms but as a private citizen, it can be regulated and its not an absolute right (i.e. if your a criminal, etc...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    And you're going to tell me that the Patriot Act doesn't have some serious conflicts with my 4th Amendment Right: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated?
    Again, I am right there with you.

    But the anit-4th amendment people would argue that because of 9/11, its not an unreasonable search and seizure because of the increase in security that is needed.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Local governments can be kept in check by exercising that democratic right.

    Not necessarily. Lower courts prior to this ruling were mixed and very reserved about allowing this taking.

    When this occurs again, citizens can still challenge it and bring suit in court. The courts will have to look at what the city is intending to do with the land. If someone is trying to take it and it wont be something that generates some amount of tax revenue or its something that isnt going to bring economic benefit, then it probably wouldnt be upheld.

    Its not a blank check but it definitely is broadening the power of the local governments.
    Paint all the smiley faces you want on this, but another HUGE wedge of credibility was just driven between the people and the judiciary. The ramifications of this fiat will echo.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Paint all the smiley faces you want on this, but another HUGE wedge of credibility was just driven between the people and the judiciary. The ramifications of this fiat will echo.
    There probably will be ramifications i.e. Chief Justice Rehnquist will probably retire, GWB will nominate a ultraconservative Judge and he will vote with the other conservatives. The court makeup wont really change until O'Conner retires (because she is usually the swing vote).

    BTW: this same credibility wedge was played out when the court ruled on cases like Texas v. Lawrence (conservatives hated it) and Bush v. Gore (liberals hated it). People don't like judicial activism unless its for their issues. (insert smiley here)

    But I tell you what wont happen...

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    This is a judicial powergrab of unprecedented proportions. There will be massive repercussions from this decision. Possibly even violence.
    ...At least I hope not.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    There probably will be ramifications i.e. Chief Justice Rehnquist will probably retire, GWB will nominate a ultraconservative Judge and he will vote with the other conservatives. The court makeup wont really change until O'Conner retires (because she is usually the swing vote).

    BTW: this same credibility wedge was played out when the court ruled on cases like Texas v. Lawrence (conservatives hated it) and Bush v. Gore (liberals hated it). People don't like judicial activism unless its for their issues. (insert smiley here)

    But I tell you what wont happen...

    ...At least I hope not.
    No, it isn't the same. Tens of millions of people own homes in this country. Many of them count on the appreciation of those homes as part of their retirement planning. All politics is local. There is nothing more local than the house you live in.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Tens of millions of people own homes in this country. Many of them count on the appreciation of those homes as part of their retirement planning.
    I agree but do we know how much they are compensated? If its above fair market value then what is the issue?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree but do we know how much they are compensated? If its above fair market value then what is the issue?
    The issue is they're kicking you out of your home! Money is only part of the equation. Can compensation make up for the memories?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    The issue is they're kicking you out of your home! Money is only part of the equation. Can compensation make up for the memories?
    I think that is AN issue but I didnt see that in 1911's post (he referenced retirement planning).

    I think the argument that the good of the many outweighs the good of a few. (I understand your point though).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree but do we know how much they are compensated? If its above fair market value then what is the issue?
    First a financial example: There is only so much inhabitable water front property in the nation. If I have acquired such, and have built my home or business on that land, no amount of money guarantees I can find and acquire similar property when I am booted out. So, while I may make a profitable on the forced sale, I lose what may be irreplaceable.

    Second, issue is that the way has been paved for private property to be transferred from one owner to another solely at the discretion of the state. Currently, if you want my property, you have to negotiate with me. Now, if you want my property, you can opt to negotiate with a government official.

    You mentioned that you hoped it would not come to violence. But this is the exact type of tyrannical imposition that led to the American Revolution (a very violent undertaking).
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think that is AN issue but I didnt see that in 1911's post (he referenced retirement planning).

    I think the argument that the good of the many outweighs the good of a few. (I understand your point though).
    Your heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, skin, and eyes could be used to improve the health of 9 more people. Should we take them from you without your consent so that many can benefit?
  14. #34  
    Shop:

    The govt. was taking property before this decision...you realize that right? The only difference before was that they had to show that there was 'blight' (arguably it wasn't that hard to do).

    Nothing has really changed. As 1911 already said..."politics is local". Its not all that often that the federal govt does this versus at the state and city levels. If someone at the local level (as you mentioned) tries to do this...you can go to your city council, your mayor, and you can even take them to court and challenge how they have defined 'public use'.

    You have options.

    As to the issue of compensation...I see your point. Land has always been considered by the courts to be 'unique' and in most contract cases...when you sue for damages...the court is more likely to give you the property back versus having someone pay restitution (unless it would cause more economic waste).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #35  
    (Off the bat, I am liberal.)
    I was disappointed with the "liberal" Justices' decision in this case (Kelo v. City of New London), Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and, in this case, Kennedy.
    In limited circumstance, indeed, "eminent domain" power makes sense, but it is ought to be invoked only when land is required for genuine public use such as roads. Also, the government needs to pay owners "just compensation" in such cases.
    That clause in the Fifth Amendment was added to guarantee due process and fight double jeopardy.
    Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the most coherent person on the bench this time around as she suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion: Take away from the poor, give to the rich, would become the norm, not the exception.
    I am surprise at the AARP and the NAACP for not showing outrage at this decision.
    I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
    -Mark Twain
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Your heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, skin, and eyes could be used to improve the health of 9 more people. Should we take them from you without your consent so that many can benefit?
    I appreciate your analogy (I actually am personally against the decision myself..but I like to advocate ) but its not quite the same.

    In your analogy, if I take those things against your will (everything you mentioned except maybe the eyes ), you would probably die and no amount of compensation would probably 'make you whole' again (although that is debatable...people sell organs in some countries I think).

    Here in the eminent domain example, if the govt takes your land against your will, you arent going to die and you will be compensated to be made whole again (except, as Insertion has pointed out...the value of the property to the landowner might not be enough to replace the memories).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Shop:

    The govt. was taking property before this decision...you realize that right? The only difference before was that they had to show that there was 'blight' (arguably it wasn't that hard to do).
    The variation here is that now the land is being given to another private citizen/entity. We have moved from land acquisition for public use to land transfer for perceived public benefit.

    Example: The tax base probably grows if my single-family house on 3 acres is turned into two 20-unit apartments. However, the wear and tear on roads and utilities also increases. So now we have added expense for public services, potentially added headcount in schools (without added staff), greater potential for fire/police/emergency services without additional staff.

    Does the city actually benefit from that transfer?
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I appreciate your analogy (I actually am personally against the decision myself..but I like to advocate ) but its not quite the same.

    In your analogy, if I take those things against your will (everything you mentioned except maybe the eyes ), you would probably die and no amount of compensation would probably 'make you whole' again (although that is debatable...people sell organs in some countries I think).

    Here in the eminent domain example, if the govt takes your land against your will, you arent going to die and you will be compensated to be made whole again (except, as Insertion has pointed out...the value of the property to the landowner might not be enough to replace the memories).
    Admittedly, my example was extreme. However, it is a legitimate concern if the standard becomes "benefit of the many outweighs benefit of the few." It becomes easy for the state to require greater and greater personal sacrifice for the supposed good of the majority.

    Takes "ask what you can do for your country" to a whole new dimension.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Admittedly, my example was extreme. However, it is a legitimate concern if the standard becomes "benefit of the many outweighs benefit of the few." It becomes easy for the state to require greater and greater personal sacrifice for the supposed good of the majority.

    Takes "ask what you can do for your country" to a whole new dimension.
    Agreed. Whats also interesting (without going too OT in the OT thread) is that this same rationale was used to sell the Patriot Act
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The variation here is that now the land is being given to another private citizen/entity. We have moved from land acquisition for public use to land transfer for perceived public benefit.

    Example: The tax base probably grows if my single-family house on 3 acres is turned into two 20-unit apartments. However, the wear and tear on roads and utilities also increases. So now we have added expense for public services, potentially added headcount in schools (without added staff), greater potential for fire/police/emergency services without additional staff.

    Does the city actually benefit from that transfer?
    This is a very fair question. Its very debatable what the actual benefit turns out to be.

    In your example, to be fair, the 20 unit apartments wil have 20 people living with them and assuming some of them work, they would contribute to the tax base and be able to pay for some of the road upkeep, and emergency services.

    I think the main point was that the local level is more equipped to make those types of 'value' decisions than at the federal level (and this same argument is used when discussing education requirements, emergency services requirements, speed limits, etc.)

    The problem is weighing that issue against the larger issue of constitutional protection.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions