Is the U.S.A. practicing Communism?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Dammit!, Dec 16, 2005.

  1. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think it's all doom and gloom. The good people of Dover, Pa., showed what is possible.

    :p
     
  2. Jay510

    Jay510 Member+

    Apr 21, 2002
    Gadsden Purchase, AZ
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    you know, Lumburgh, from 'Office Space'

    Damn Smiley, i thought you was hip :cool:
     
  3. Matt in the Hat

    Matt in the Hat Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 21, 2002
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]


    Yeah......I'm gonna have to go ahead and say this thread is hijacked.....okay......Great
     
  4. prk166

    prk166 BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 8, 2000
    Med City

    True. But to jump back to your main point on it, how is it good for those who believe that level of public use is wrong? Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but you seem to say "no, the decision leaves it in local hands so it's ok" and yet it's those very local hands that are creating the problem. If the courts decided to side-step addressing segregation and leave it in local hands woud that be good? For those of us who feel Kelo is wrong, that's what we felt has happened. That the courts simply shirked the issue. Yes, that's not as bad as an endorsement but it's not exactly saying the practice is wrong. And if you think Kelo is wrong, that sure isn't very encouraging.
     
  5. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Alas.....I keep saying I'm gonna rent "Office Space"

    Goldstein is the bogeyman from "1984"
     
  6. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You are misunderstanding me. I did not say that the decision left the decision in local hands. The Court didn't just throw up its hands and say.....we can't decide....let the legislature have the last word. They reviewed the legislation/development plan to see if it met with what the majority believed to be public use according to takings jurisprudence. When I said that in the end the majority was comfortable with the legislature's actions it was with regard to the idea that the legislature had enacted a plan that was going to redevelop the entire area under an integrated plan for the public purpose of improving economic conditions in an area that had already been labeled "distressed" by the state.

    My main point was and is that based on past and current takings jurisprudence, this case wasn't reallly a stretch. As the majority's opinion stated this was not a transfer of private property between private entities A and B based solely on the idea that B would make the profit more useful. Yet, that's how it's consistently portrayed.

    Finally at a very basic level, takings decisions are always initially going to be in "local hands." If you find that troubling then it would seem you have a problem with the 5th Amendment as written as much as you have a problem with this decision.
     
  7. nowayjose

    nowayjose New Member

    Apr 24, 2005

    Across the street from this was the Rosecliff.
     
  8. Pingudo

    Pingudo New Member

    Nov 18, 2003
    Santa Cruz
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    :eek:


    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page