SC Rules Government can seize your land for development!

Politics and religion
21

Jason- Government having the power to do things that benefit society is pretty much the defining feature of a liberal, right?

Why would you be surprised at Souter? This is a pretty typical strict constructionist vs. other justices stuff.

mouselock- There’s no Kelly Blue Book for property, so while people will receive some money, I’m sure the determination of that amount will be rife with corruption.

lackey- Exactly. Can anyone remember the last time government lost power and we gained freedom? There’s a bipartisan assault on everyone who isn’t elected that’s been going on for entirely too goddamn long.

22

I’d be willing to bet fair value only applies to the land itself, and not any improvements on the land. You know, like houses and stuff.

23

Read a number of historical papers over the years, starting very close to the writing of the constitution (no I’m not going to link, do your homework and you’ll probably find better ones than I have in my library) on the definition of eminent domain versus the foundational notion of private property. It was clearly meant to be focused on the clear and very significant good of all of the people, not the government. The problem is that when the founders put a constitution and government together it was extremely important to them that the government be subservient to the people, and not vice-versa, based on their recent experiences. That was the entire core of what they were trying to build, a nation founded on the individuals rights that were more precious and powerful than some centralized political party. Thus the bill of rights and so many other core concepts of the constitution: the government was not to have more power than the people it served, it was to be the servant and not the master.

We’ve gone through a phase inversion due to the insatiable thirst for power of politicians who make politics a career of power and money rather than a servitude to the people, and the same insatiable thirst for power of so many others taking advantage of a government drunk with power. Does anyone really think that Adams, Paine, Jeffersons, etc. intended that the government could kick you out of your home or off your farm against your will just so that they could build something that would give them more money? Does anyone believe that the constitution’s words and spirit intended kicking people out of their homes so the government could get some extra cash?

Jason, there’s a reason the liberal judges voted for this and the conservatives against it, because the liberal judges have a much looser interpretation of the constitution often to the point of deciding on the basis of their feelings of what’s “right” versus what’s constitutional.

24

Eminent domain is a feature of both liberal and conservative philosophies, unless you think a conservative would oppose condemning houses to build a military base, for example.

Why would you be surprised at Souter? This is a pretty typical strict constructionist vs. other justices stuff.

Normally he’s good on the “side with the little people getting screwed.”

Jason, there’s a reason the liberal judges voted for this and the conservatives against it, because the liberal judges have a much looser interpretation of the constitution often to the point of deciding on the basis of their feelings of what’s “right” versus what’s constitutional.

Oh yes, those liberals just chucking the original text out the window while the conservatives strictly interpret. Bullshit. Read that nutbag Bork. Intepreting things that aren’t there isn’t unique to a political philosophy.

25

Jason- That’s non-responsive. Government having the power to do things is pretty much the defining feature of a liberal, right?

26

That’s a pretty crazy decision.

27

.

OK - eminent domain to tear down people’s houses to build malls and highrises is the liberal interpretation of eminant domain, based on the split in the vote here.

Oh yes, those liberals just chucking the original text out the window while the conservatives strictly interpret. Bullshit. Read that nutbag Bork. Intepreting things that aren’t there isn’t unique to a political philosophy.

It is far more typical of liberal judges to be much more, um, liberal in their interpretation. And after this ruling, I think a new bar has been set for the term “nutbag” when talking about judges.

“Yep, the constitution intends for government to kick you out of your home or off your farm because we’d like to build a big ole mall so we can make more money. Hey, get off your family farm, that would make a great Cineplex! Yep, that’s constitutional.”

28

No, the govts job is to keep things from getting out of hand. Not too much rape and pillage, not too many giveaways. There must be balance in the force, young stormtrooper.

29

I think GideonGamer pretty clearly blaming it on hardcore leftist socialists on the SC, not “liberals”. Check his posts for the bold parts.

Eminent domain is a feature of both liberal and conservative philosophies, unless you think a conservative would oppose condemning houses to build a military base, for example.[/quote]
Sure, but building a military base is a governmental use of the property thus acquired. Building another Starbucks-attached minimall is at best a governmental hope for some kind of nebulous improvement in quality of life and at worst will become a way for rich and powerful developers to “acquire” any land they’re looking for. I refer you to the “urban renewal” of the Bronx in the 1960s.

30

I think, in principle, its sort of meant to be like “forced pooling”. Whether it will work out that way remains to be seen.

In the oil business, after a hundred plus years of inheritances, conveyances, and transfers of property, mineral rights for very small tracts of land (the rights to everything beneath the surface, usually deeper than 300 or so) have often been distributed to tens or even dozens of individuals.

If even one individual decides they don’t want to sign your lease, no matter how miniscule their share, the entire deal is scrubbed.

In New Mexico and Oklahoma they instituted something called forced pooling, which allows operators to present before a court the case to force the recalcitrant mineral owner into the lease, usually offering a fair or the same lease as everyone else received. This helps expidite development.

In urban areas its quite possible when cleaning out the cockroach motels there are a few unreasonable owners that simply refuse to sell for any possible compensation, even if their own property is in a state of total disrepair. Without their consent their property could botch a development project or drag the value of the new development. And there are a LOT of areas of urban blight that need cleaning up. Austin, TX, for ex., is slowly redeveloping the East Side Downtown area, which used to be fairly valuable - and even has the state cemetary - but is now low rent, close to 100% hispanic, and generally in a state of decay. So the town has grown almost ridiculously distant in every direction but east; despite the East side being the closest to the town’s center. I can imagine situations where this sort of decision would come into play.

But can this be abused? In the oil business again, strictly speaking, the surface owner; ie, the guy who own the cattle, the ranch house, the farms, has NO rights at all. Mineral Rights take precedence 100% of the time, and there are virtually no laws requiring operators to provide compensation. But they do, 100% of the time, because 1)its just what’s been done, law or not, since day one, and 2) if it WERE ever taken to court, the surface owner would win anyway, despite the lack of formal law.

So i can see where this S.C. decision can be abused, but i imagine such abuse would be overturned if taken to court.

31

What MS said for the definition of liberal opinion on government. You could just as easily say “well clearly torture is an inherently conservative policy option because a lesser weight for the rights of foriegners is a central tenent of conservatism”, and be equally misleading.

Jeff - the more liberal judges on the court were in favor of this decision. That’s not the same thing as “liberals are in favor of this decision” or “liberalism is in favor of this sort of decision” or “liberal philosophy tend sto lead to decisions like this”.

t is far more typical of liberal judges to be much more, um, liberal in their interpretation.

Nope. The constitution-in-exile movement, which more or less maps onto Bush’s nominees, pretty much “interprets” the constitution as forbidding minimum wage legislation, forbidding any federal regulation of abortion, and forbidding any federal antitrust action. Does that strike you as strict textualism? One side just had better PR terrain.

Shift, my point was that the definition of eminent domain is loose. Would a starbucks as part of a military base cafeteria complex count? It’s easy to come up with messy cases.

I actually agree that government shouldn’t be able to condemn for “urban renewal” crap at all, based on Jane Jacobs’ book, but just because I disagree with the current position of hte line doesn’t mean I think the position of the line is obviously on my terrain.

32

McCullough, you can’t truly believe that my statement is as misleading as your version. The most active thread in P&R is the smoking ban thread, for God’s sake.

This isn’t controversial or meant to be insulting, liberals really do believe government should actively work to benefit society. Look at every single economic thread we have, what’s the divide?

33

I thought that liberals were champions of civil rights. :( Now all hope is lost.

34

They also believe in economic justice and looking out in the little guy, which is why I’m shocked that the “liberals” on the court lined up on the side of the whores. Bah.

35

Somewhere in the murky depths of this decision, the O’Hare expansion is lurking, waiting to be born. The almighty hand of the Daleys strikes again!

36

Jason should be cut some slack: he’s not defending the actions of the Supremes in the majority just because he’s on the same “team”. It’s okay to stand apart from those you normally agree with when they do something stupid and inexplicable, like confusing “public use” with “public good”.

Or, say, enter into a land war in Asia for no rational reason…

37

Just a casual observation from the web.

Best Buy HQ? It’s a pretty good example of big business desire combined with proably a tax grab on the part of local government.

38

Dude, I’ve met Randy Barnett, and to say that there’s a constitutional in exile movement is, shall we say, highly misleading. Granted he’s all about textualism, but how can anyone involved with code not be? State your assumptions up front and let the syntax play itself out as it was meant to. Force people to make coherent code, rather than using vagaries and custom to create some form of norm which is entirely dependant on context.

I mean you have to agree, O’Connor and Thomas have been intellectually coherent on both Raich and Kelo, while Scalia and Souter have not.

39

I’m confident the founding fathers had this in mind when they laid the foundation of our country. Cause you know from history this whole “governments can seize citizen’s land” issue is one they completely agreed with England on.

40

One more freedom down the drain.