Congress Working on Property Seizure Bills

[Judi Lynn]

Congress Working on Property Seizure Bills

Congress Working on Bills to Blunt High Court's Property Seizure Ruling
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Jun 30, 2005 — Lawmakers are trying to blunt a Supreme Court decision that says local governments can seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls and other private development.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Thursday the high court had made "a horrible decision" and he hoped it would cause a backlash.

"The only silver lining to this decision is the possibility that this time the court has finally gone too far and that the American people are ready to reassert their constitutional authority," said DeLay, R-Texas, a critic of recent court decisions.

In a 5-4 ruling last week, the Supreme Court said municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes and put up shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations. DeLay agreed.
(snip/...)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=897234&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[phantom power]

1. How bad does a ruling have to be, where I agree with DeLay?

[global1]

5. Don't Get Sucked In To This Evil Ploy.......

Scenario:

1. DeLay says SC overstepped their bounds.
2. Starts saying the Judiciary is baaaddd.
3. We must control the Judiciary - because see they want to take your property away from you.
4. Repugs get the Sheeple to agree with them.
5. Begin to blame the evil "Liberals"
6. Repugs say: No filibuster - up or down votes
7. Repugs begin: Nominations for 'over the top' conservative candidates for judgeships
8. Sheeple agree - because they don't want their property taken from them
9. Bingo - they control the Judiciary
10. All Checks And Balances Are Gone - Bye-Bye


KKKarl Strikes Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[olddad56]

14. great theory, except that they already own the judicary,...

fuck, they own the citizens. Whether you want to believe that or not, they own you and me, and they can already take away our property. The Patriots Act took away all of our constitutional rights. They can do what ever they damn well please. They can lock you up without any charges. They can torture and rape you. All you have to do is be a person that they declare as an enemy of the people.

[MisterP]

2. the Federalist Society and the "takings movement" try to eliminate

environmental rules by attacking eminent domain: Chief Justice Scalia should clear this issue right up!

[GarySeven]

13. The rationale behind the ruling, ironically enough ...

was to re-assert the liberal interpretation of the Takings Clause which has been under attack for nearly 20 years by half-baked theories concocted by the radical right, whose aim is to do just what you say, to invalidate not only EPA's authority but also that of a host of other government regulatory agencies.

Unfortunately, the ruling's effect is HORRIBLE and has redefined the Takings Clause in favor of the wealthy and to the detriment of the economy. Every developer in the nation will be building five-star hotels on the choicest real estate, seized at gunpoint from the poor, middle-class - and even a few rich folks. But who will stay in these properties? How much will prices rise due to companies passing on the expenses of new buildings? And, more important, how is land or property values to be subject to any kind of market control?

I'm sure the Supremes felt they had to rule this way to protect the Takings Clause from radical interpretations, but their cure was much, much, much, much worse than the disease.

[Massacure]

3. OMG! OMG! I agree with the Devil!!! Hell has frozen over!!!

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

[barb162]

17. same here ( that decision really does have a lot of people pissed)

[gizmo1979]

4. They are saying this is a liberal victory

but I don't agree with it at all.It goes back to corporate greed.I can see if it was truly a utilitarian need ,the greater good,but I don't want to be lumped in with this policy.

[Mist]

9. A "liberal victory" ??!! When property can be seized for PRIVATE

developers, that's naked Thug greed! The question is, is Delay just flapping his gums, or is he actually against it? Maybe some of his constituents are worried their McMansions might be taken from them?

[barb162]

18. when you look at the judges who voted for it, you gotta wonder

They were the "liberal" ones

[Independent_Liberal]

6. God help us!!!

I can't believe it! I'm starting to agree with people I never thought I'd agree with. You guys are right. Hell is freezing over for sure!

[onenote]

7. I'm waiting to see what the legislation says

Before its over, my bet is that the repubs turn it into something that keeps government from engaging in urban renewal projects that ensure low income housing, etc etc.

For example, Sensenbrenner says he will introduce a Private Property Rights Protection Act that will prohibit any state or municipality from using federal funds for any project in which economic development is used as a justification for exercising eminent domain.

Doesn't sound like its limited to taking private residences. So it could prevent taking even undeveloped property or parking lots to use for low income housing as part of an urban renewal plan. I don't trust these guys and neither should anyone else.

onenote



edited to add Sensenbrenner proposal

[Sandpiper]

8. This case did nothing to change the substantive law of Eminent Domain

So I'm having a hard time understanding the outrage.

[onenote]

10. agreed -- watch out for the hidden agenda

As I've said...before its over the right will turn this "outrage" into an excuse to limit spending on urban renewal projects that benefit minorities or to block regulation of business on the grounds that its a "taking" of property -- if they have their way it would be bye bye to clean air, water, and other environmental protections.

onenote

edited to add reference to environmental regs and to change subject line

[Timmy5835]

11. What did the Supreme Court really say?

The Court ONLY said that there is nothing in the Constitution that says governments can't take personal property. SCOTUS did not say it was OK just that their is nothing in the Constituation to stop it. So if you don't like it go to your state leg. and change it.

[Indy Lurker]

15. S - T - R - E - T - C - H the meaning of "Public Use"

The fifth amendment reads:

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."



What the Supreme Court did is stretch the meaning of "Public Use" to include transferring property from one private party to another.

They did this by saying a community development project is a "Public Purpose" which is a "Public Use" even it it is done entirely by a private party.

Of course it took them 10 pages to say it.

[cprise]

20. Would you prefer SCOTUS make private-to-private ED illegal

...and prompt cities and states to 'launder' their takings by making the property in question public before it is re-sold?

How about just forbidding cities and states from selling to private parties altogether? That would solve the whole connundrum.

[eternalburn]

12. Don't forget about this little tidbit.....

http://www.hermes-press.com/NN1.htm

Molly Ivins reveals an Ashcroft surprise.

"Unnumbered weirdness by John Ashcroft (it's too hard to keep count): The Department of Justice has asked the Government Printing Office "to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the department has deemed 'not appropriate for external use.' Of the five publications, two are texts of federal laws. They are to be removed from libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library,” according to the American Library Association. All the documents concern either federal civil or criminal forfeiture procedure, including how to reclaim items that have been confiscated by the government during an investigation.

"I don't know how you feel about living in a country where the citizens are not allowed to read the law, but I find it ... surprising."

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=miv

[CTLawGuy]

16. I agree with Delay

wow thats scary :scared:

even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Eugene]

19. Local government is a state issue. I don't trust Congress.

I don't like the SC descision, but I'm afraid the Repugs
will go too far to protect private property, like
gutting enviromental restrictions.

I'd rather give the voters and their elected state officials
a chance to fix their land taking laws first.