Comments on: But The Point Is, It's Vacant Land For The Benefit of the Public http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/ A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:39:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SPQR http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-708155 SPQR Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:25:56 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-708155 rofl rofl

]]> By: Ken http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-708124 Ken Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:03:17 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-708124 I remember when we didn't get a lot of commenters. Some days, fondly. I remember when we didn't get a lot of commenters. Some days, fondly.

]]> By: Mark Ward http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-708082 Mark Ward Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:30:51 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-708082 ES... Looking forward to when Liberals ABORT all future Liberals (oh, wait, that's what Public School Indoctrination's for, isn't it?)! ES… Looking forward to when Liberals ABORT all future Liberals (oh, wait, that's what Public School Indoctrination's for, isn't it?)!

]]> By: Mark Ward http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-707572 Mark Ward Sat, 17 Sep 2011 16:05:43 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-707572 ES, YOU mistate the "takings clause"! It DOES NOT say "for the public GOOD", it says "nor shall private property be taken for public USE, without just compensation" (empasis added). THAT is the crux of the PROBLEM with the SCOTUS Majority ruling in Kelo - they SUBSTITUTED (changed, altered, AMMENDED, if you will) the MEANING of the PLAIN TEXT of the Constitution to suit THEIR DESIRED OUTCOME! Taking from ONE private party to SELL/GIVE it to another PRIVATE PARTY is NOT for "the public USE", so the Justices had to IGNORE the plain language AND THE CLEAR INTENT of the "takings clause" and LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH! ES, YOU mistate the "takings clause"!

It DOES NOT say "for the public GOOD", it says "nor shall private property be taken for public USE, without just compensation" (empasis added).

THAT is the crux of the PROBLEM with the SCOTUS Majority ruling in Kelo – they SUBSTITUTED (changed, altered, AMMENDED, if you will) the MEANING of the PLAIN TEXT of the Constitution to suit THEIR DESIRED OUTCOME!

Taking from ONE private party to SELL/GIVE it to another PRIVATE PARTY is NOT for "the public USE", so the Justices had to IGNORE the plain language AND THE CLEAR INTENT of the "takings clause" and LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH!

]]> By: GregS http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-53210 GregS Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:19:08 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-53210 The Kelo decision abolished private property rights for the sake of central planning. That's what the decision means. There used to be a time when this would have been considered un-American. The Kelo decision abolished private property rights for the sake of central planning. That's what the decision means. There used to be a time when this would have been considered un-American.

]]> By: ES http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52674 ES Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:20:27 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52674 Yeah, getting the name of the justice who wrote the opinion wrong totally voids my argument. I apologize. I like this decision in an ironic way. I want states to have more and more rights until finally the South breaks off again, only this time we shouldn't stop them. Yeah, getting the name of the justice who wrote the opinion wrong totally voids my argument. I apologize.

I like this decision in an ironic way. I want states to have more and more rights until finally the South breaks off again, only this time we shouldn't stop them.

]]> By: Chuck http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52568 Chuck Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:35:39 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52568 Hi ES - Glad to see you looked up the opinion. Did you notice that O'Connor didn't write it? In fact, she wrote the dissent -- making her one of the few lawyers involved in this charade to emerge without shame. But I guess you disagree, since you like the opinion. As for that quote from Stevens, why do you think it matters? Of course the Kelo opinion does not overturn the Tenth Amendment. And the subtext concedes the original point: "We are not going to enforce the Fifth Amendment anymore, but the people can still do it if they want." Hi ES –
Glad to see you looked up the opinion. Did you notice that O'Connor didn't write it? In fact, she wrote the dissent — making her one of the few lawyers involved in this charade to emerge without shame. But I guess you disagree, since you like the opinion.
As for that quote from Stevens, why do you think it matters? Of course the Kelo opinion does not overturn the Tenth Amendment. And the subtext concedes the original point: "We are not going to enforce the Fifth Amendment anymore, but the people can still do it if they want."

]]> By: eddie http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52540 eddie Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:20:11 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52540 TJIC would be so proud of you now. TJIC would be so proud of you now.

]]> By: ES http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52492 ES Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:40:45 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52492 Chuck, allow me to introduce you to your epic fail: In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. <b>We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline.</b> Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. It took California 2 attempts to get an "anti Kelo" statute passed, because special interests ostensibly in the construction industry ran brilliant ads like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UFbIEy6Z7s&feature=related 90 was flawed, but we finally passed a less flawed Prop 99 over this incomprehensible prop 98: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_98_versus_California_Proposition_99_%282008%29 Point being, I don't trust states with shit. The decision I would have liked was NO TAKING FROM A TO GIVE TO B EXCEPT FOR THOROUGHFARES (RR tracks and airports). Done and done. Is that enough of a parody for you? Chuck, allow me to introduce you to your epic fail:

In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.

It took California 2 attempts to get an "anti Kelo" statute passed, because special interests ostensibly in the construction industry ran brilliant ads like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UFbIEy6Z7s&feature=related

90 was flawed, but we finally passed a less flawed Prop 99 over this incomprehensible prop 98:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_98_versus_California_Proposition_99_%282008%29

Point being, I don't trust states with shit. The decision I would have liked was NO TAKING FROM A TO GIVE TO B EXCEPT FOR THOROUGHFARES (RR tracks and airports). Done and done.

Is that enough of a parody for you?

]]> By: piperTom http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52487 piperTom Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:17:22 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52487 Beware Ken! If you start executing politicians for disrespecting property rights, we'll have damn few left! Beware Ken! If you start executing politicians for disrespecting property rights, we'll have damn few left!

]]> By: matthew http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52458 matthew Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:38:41 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52458 The court decision might still be boneheaded, but it's not clear that Kelo changed the law of the land at all. Justice Douglas had said pretty much the same thing about 50 years before Kelo in Berman v. Parker. I'd just argue that state and local planners are dumber than they used to be. The court decision might still be boneheaded, but it's not clear that Kelo changed the law of the land at all. Justice Douglas had said pretty much the same thing about 50 years before Kelo in Berman v. Parker. I'd just argue that state and local planners are dumber than they used to be.

]]> By: Chuck http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52442 Chuck Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:11:29 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52442 @ES: Brilliant parody. A post so confused it could have been written by the lawyers who lost this case. @ES: Brilliant parody. A post so confused it could have been written by the lawyers who lost this case.

]]> By: ES http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52429 ES Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:08:16 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52429 I like the decision in Kelo. Most people misunderstand it. O'Connor said that it was *up to the states* to decide what "common good" was, and that if Conn decided mowing over people's houses to give to a corporation was "common good," that's Conn's prerogative. It's a states' rights issue. You don't like it? Write your local legislator. This is a great example of "states rights" that needs to be expounded to the "Tenthers" popping up at tea bagging events hosted by Glenn Beck. States can't be trusted with shit. They realistically are like the high school Student Body Administration- decide what goes on the lunch menu and that's it. Can't wait till the Wise Latina becomes the 6th vote to overturn Roe/ Casey so that can be a state decision too. That should separate the wheat from the chaff as Texasistan gets buried under the weight of 100,000 unwanted babies a year. I like the decision in Kelo. Most people misunderstand it. O'Connor said that it was *up to the states* to decide what "common good" was, and that if Conn decided mowing over people's houses to give to a corporation was "common good," that's Conn's prerogative. It's a states' rights issue. You don't like it? Write your local legislator. This is a great example of "states rights" that needs to be expounded to the "Tenthers" popping up at tea bagging events hosted by Glenn Beck. States can't be trusted with shit. They realistically are like the high school Student Body Administration- decide what goes on the lunch menu and that's it.

Can't wait till the Wise Latina becomes the 6th vote to overturn Roe/ Casey so that can be a state decision too. That should separate the wheat from the chaff as Texasistan gets buried under the weight of 100,000 unwanted babies a year.

]]> By: Doug http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52428 Doug Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:56:09 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52428 It, I think, would have been more economically efficient if 1.) govt stayed out of it and 2.) the company would have paid a lot for it. Obviously, some of the landowners would not sold at any price (I would have - I can imagine a lot), but if it was too much to pay, the company should have gone somewhere else. It, I think, would have been more economically efficient if 1.) govt stayed out of it and 2.) the company would have paid a lot for it. Obviously, some of the landowners would not sold at any price (I would have – I can imagine a lot), but if it was too much to pay, the company should have gone somewhere else.

]]> By: Jag http://www.popehat.com/2009/11/11/but-the-point-is-its-vacant-land-for-the-benefit-of-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-52416 Jag Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:07:18 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=7025#comment-52416 What a massive cock up. I know a few people that have clerked for the Supremes. While extremely intelligent, I wouldn't trust them to accurately interpret a grocery list. What a massive cock up. I know a few people that have clerked for the Supremes. While extremely intelligent, I wouldn't trust them to accurately interpret a grocery list.

]]>