This post shows your fundamental lack of understanding of both the takings clause and the recent Kelo decision.
yea, smiley...long time since soccernet....still in school, only in year 2 of med school i must say, i might be dumb, but then im not the president, which i guess qualifies me to critisize since im a constituent, no?
Yes, but since you're not a taxpayer your gripes get discounted 75% And being a liberal cuts the remaining 25% down to 12.5%. And once you become a doctor, then you'll be a limousine liberal with opinion significance in the vanishing "Streisand" region. So, enjoy it while it lasts.
Somewhere in here you claim to have gone to law school. Did you take a property class? Did you sleep through it? Eminent domain has existed since laws existed.
Sigh... Nice of you to jump in with your 1/2 cent here. Why don't you read the rest of the thread first? I gave an opinion and two people said I was wrong, without saying why. Now I have my honesty questioned by some guy who comes in with the genius "Eminent domain has existed since laws existed." Wonderful. It's making me want to work more and BS less.
Here is my initial post in the original thread on Kelo where my point was that it's hyperbole and hysterics to claim that the decision means the end of private property as we know it. I didn't copy and paste the entire thread but if you do an advanced search, the thread title is something along the lines of "Supreme Court Ok's Taking Homes." Within that thread you can also read (if you're so inclined) my posts at # 89; 99; and 108. There was also a thread entitled something along the lines of..."Group trying to Take Souter's home." I had several posts on the issue in there as well.
your saying that having money will take my mind off the fact the Bush is a retard, and render my opinion worthless? Am i not allowed to tell W to F-off even if im getting the primo tax cuts? I'd rather he take more money, and plan sh1t out so my family in Iraq doesn't have to die. i may be worthless to you, but at least i never slept with Lumburgh.
I've seen that in Minneapolis. Anytime a developer is interested in putting up something more than 4 stories outside of downtown, they need to get a variance from the city. And when that process kicks in, the neighbors have a fit. Minneapolis, like a lot of inner cities, is pretty liberal. So I think it's a fair guess that a good chunk of those complaining about urban sprawl are also the same ones fighting increased density in their neighboorhood. Yes, it's try that you don't need 13 story condo buildings to get denisity. But when the inner city and inner-ring suburabs are fully developed, you're not goign to be redevloping entire square miles with 4 story multiple family housing to increase the density at the core. To increase it, you need to add density here and there where you can. ONce that brownfield is developed, it's likely to not be redeveloped for another 100 years. Anyway, they use zoning laws as a tool to control other peoples property. I've seen the MPLS city council spend over 5 minutes talking about what color siding will be on one proposed house. That's the problem with zoning laws. In theory they can be helpful but as time has gone on they've more and more become a tool to micromanage other peoples property. Long ago they stopped becoming a tool to ensure that dirty chemical plant isn't built up next to residential housing. Oh, wait, they still do that. In Saint Paul below downotwn by the river they've gone and added new residential housing next to power plant with it's big ol ugly piles of coal.
The problem here is that your posts are so far below the Mendoza line of informed commentary that there's very little point to engaging you in a serious debate. Just for grins, though, here's your original post that led to people calling you uninformed. There's two problems here, and the dumber, second one is the reason why it's a waste of time to talk about the substantive one. 1. Your statement of the law on takings is wrong. 2. Your premise is the USA is practiciing communism and you cite the takings clause as an example. Now, a simple primer on why your premises are too far afield to take seriously. The takings clause is in the original Bill of Rights, circa 1790. Communism exists from the time of Marx and Engels, nominally the Russian Revolution, generously we'll say circa 1900. How can a clause that existed 110 years before communism did be an example of creeping communism? Quite obviously, the premise of your thread is stupid. If you can't be bothered to understand the basic idea that the law of eminent domain existed from feudal times and therefore has ZERO relation to communism, why would I want to take the additional time to discuss the nuances of the takings clause? So, if I now restate my sentence: Eminent domain laws have existed for as long as laws have been written. Do you now understand why that statement makes the premise of your thread completely and totally wrong?
If you're referring to your post where you said that the government can just come in, take your home and build a strip mall in its place......my posts certainly contradict that rather flippant statement. If you disagree, perhaps you are the one who should elaborate at this point.
Two things: 1. See this? www.libertyzone.com It's called a link, and with it, you can refer to an article or something that you don't believe, but think may make interesting discussion. So, no, I don't think USA is practicing communism but thought the article was interesting and might lead to discussion from which I might learn something. sigh... (it's just so tedious) 2. The AUTHOR'S argument is that the first Communist plank is to do away with private property, and that the 14th Amendment and other things, is heading in that direction. Just because eminent domain came before comunism does not mean that it cannot be utilized to fulfill a Communist plank. For example: Retardation existed before you were born, but it can still be utilized to assist with your posts.
Agreed. And agreed it was flippant, but I don't have time to be nuanced every single post. "Govt can come in and snatch your property to allow a developer to build a strip-mall." Is exactly what I said. And I never said Kelo is the end of private property. Even the author of the article wasn't going that far... Look at what I wrote and if you still disagree with it, I'll pull the language/facts from the decision.
My point is that your statement COULD be right BUT only based on the occurrence of a number of contingencies. Your statement is analogous to saying "Z comes after A." My response is: "Well, possibly, but you have to go through BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY first to get there.
Well, yeah. But "BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" still is 25 letters closer to my home than I'm comfortable with. Hopefully, the definition of "public use" will be reigned in by our upcoming "conservative" Court. But, I'm not holding my breath.
It's highly doubtful. If you read all of my posts in those old threads on the topic, you'd have seen where I discussed how the focus of the opinion wasn't really on whether public use had been expanded too broadly. Only Justice Thomas (not surprisingly) wanted to turn back the clock on the public use/public purpose distinction/non-distinction.
Yeah, seems like they were comfortable with this decision "as is" so to speak. Which I guess means we need to rely on the good sense of our local elected leaders. Lord help us.