Congress working on bills to counteract Supreme Court property decision

Yea but I agree with why she opposes it. I hate how the federal government uses federal funds to pretty much bribe/ force states to not do something or to change a law.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Yea but I agree with why she opposes it. I hate how the federal government uses federal funds to pretty much bribe/ force states to not do something or to change a law.[/QUOTE]


While I HATE the SC choice on this, I really hate Congress over stepping it's boundries. It's like the drinking age, it's a states right, but if you don't make it 21 the Federal Government doesn'tgive you highway money.
 
Hate it? Love it? fuck, I'm just stunned at the idea of Sensenbrenner and Conyers working in compliance with each other.

myke.
...I'm a bit torn at the precedent this may set (if Congress disagrees with a Supreme Court decision, they need only pass legislation to overturn, ignore, or change that decision).
 
Would you rather see me and PAD teamed up on either of our porches with Shotguns or .357 Magnum's loaded ready to aim and fire if some condo developer tries to force us off our land without our consent or an agreement of good benefit to us both?
Seriously if I get a house I REALLY like later on I'm tempted to purchase a GUN just for this purpose should it ever happen. And if I get the kind of house "I" want built I don't know if I'll be comfortable moving of course I'm sure in rural Japan where I plan to have one of my houses they'd be pretty nice to me about this so I wouldn't need to do this. I'm most concerned about San Diego, but not Ecici(another place I want to live).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...I'm a bit torn at the precedent this may set (if Congress disagrees with a Supreme Court decision, they need only pass legislation to overturn, ignore, or change that decision).[/QUOTE]
That's actually the way its supposed to work. The Supreme Court is in charge making decisions based on existing laws and, above all, the Constitution. The simple fact is that the Constitution and existing laws do not make it illegal to take away private property as long as the owner gets paid. As long as you fairly pay the (former) owner, you can take away as much property as you want, as the laws stand now. Should that change? Probably, but that's not the Supreme Court's decision to make - that's Congress's job. Ultimately, all you're criticizing them for here is for doing their job.
 
Thanks Drocket for reminding us we just need an ADDITIONAL Amendment added to the Constitution for just our property rights. It's too bad with France's situation and all we didn't take anything from it and add an amendment for it truly.
 
No real need for a Constitutional Amendment. We just need some laws setting up universal guidelines for when and how eminent domain can be used, which is pretty much what Congress is doing.
 
[quote name='Drocket']That's actually the way its supposed to work. The Supreme Court is in charge making decisions based on existing laws and, above all, the Constitution. The simple fact is that the Constitution and existing laws do not make it illegal to take away private property as long as the owner gets paid. As long as you fairly pay the (former) owner, you can take away as much property as you want, as the laws stand now. Should that change? Probably, but that's not the Supreme Court's decision to make - that's Congress's job. Ultimately, all you're criticizing them for here is for doing their job.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. I don't quite get the right-wing fury over "activist judges," then. If their decisions can be overturned by a congressional majority (a REPUBLICAN congressional majority, that is), where is the threat? Why be so upset by a group whose power is checked so easily?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. I don't quite get the right-wing fury over "activist judges," then. If their decisions can be overturned by a congressional majority (a REPUBLICAN congressional majority, that is), where is the threat? Why be so upset by a group whose power is checked so easily?[/QUOTE]

But...but..., they don't agree with us! ;-P
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hmm. I don't quite get the right-wing fury over "activist judges," then. If their decisions can be overturned by a congressional majority (a REPUBLICAN congressional majority, that is), where is the threat? Why be so upset by a group whose power is checked so easily?[/QUOTE]
There's a few things:
1) True activist judges won't care about what laws Congress makes. Activist judges are the ones willing to override/overturn/simply ignore existing laws in order to promote what they believe in. True activist judges are extremely rare, though, no matter what the Republican spinsters want you to think. The vast majority of those they label 'activist' are simply following the laws, as they're written. Activist judges do exist, though.
2) A lot of the changes that Republicans want to make can't be made because they violate the Constitution. Flag burning, for example, or ensuring that gay marriage can never occur. For those, they do need a Constitutional amendment.
3) Pretty much what Sarang01 said - they love to get pissed off when someone dares to disagree with them.
 
From that article, it sounds like the law would only prevent federal funds from being used on a given project that uses eminent domain for private companies. It seems that would still leave the door open to big corporations like Wal-Mart to take land and not take any federal money. This may stop some smaller land-grabs but it won't stop big corporations. I think this is a pretty weak solution.

With the current public backlash, it would seem like we could get a bipartisan law passed that prohibited eminent domain for private companies.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']From that article, it sounds like the law would only prevent federal funds from being used on a given project that uses eminent domain for private companies. It seems that would still leave the door open to big corporations like Wal-Mart to take land and not take any federal money. This may stop some smaller land-grabs but it won't stop big corporations. I think this is a pretty weak solution.[/quote]
There's a few bills floating around in Congress to try to fix the problem. The first one the article talks about does pretty much what you said, but if you read further, they talk about another one that cuts off federal funding for states that allow eminent domain for economic reasons

With the current public backlash, it would seem like we could get a bipartisan law passed that prohibited eminent domain for private companies.
Click to expand...
Its rather questionable if that would be possible. The US government isn't permitted to make laws that bind states - that's a matter of states rights (although all states are bound by the US Constitution, because they agreed to it, which is what makes a lot of people think that universal standards actually exist for most things, though they don't.) The reality is that the US government does most of its work through a system of bribes, which is pretty much what was proposed. I don't have time to get into this further now, but if you want more information, I'll post more about this later.
 
[quote name='Drocket']There's a few bills floating around in Congress to try to fix the problem. The first one the article talks about does pretty much what you said, but if you read further, they talk about another one that cuts off federal funding for states that allow eminent domain for economic reasons[/QUOTE]
Cutting off ALL federal funds certainly would kill it but I don't like the backhanded approach. Maybe it needs a Constitutional ammendment (unlike flag burning).
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Would you rather see me and PAD teamed up on either of our porches with Shotguns or .357 Magnum's loaded ready to aim and fire if some condo developer tries to force us off our land without our consent or an agreement of good benefit to us both?
Seriously if I get a house I REALLY like later on I'm tempted to purchase a GUN just for this purpose should it ever happen. And if I get the kind of house "I" want built I don't know if I'll be comfortable moving of course I'm sure in rural Japan where I plan to have one of my houses they'd be pretty nice to me about this so I wouldn't need to do this. I'm most concerned about San Diego, but not Ecici(another place I want to live).[/QUOTE]

If that ever happened I would be right there by your side magazines full and ready to rock and roll.
 
[quote name='Drocket']There's a few things:
1) True activist judges won't care about what laws Congress makes. Activist judges are the ones willing to override/overturn/simply ignore existing laws in order to promote what they believe in. True activist judges are extremely rare, though, no matter what the Republican spinsters want you to think. The vast majority of those they label 'activist' are simply following the laws, as they're written. Activist judges do exist, though.
2) A lot of the changes that Republicans want to make can't be made because they violate the Constitution. Flag burning, for example, or ensuring that gay marriage can never occur. For those, they do need a Constitutional amendment.
3) Pretty much what Sarang01 said - they love to get pissed off when someone dares to disagree with them.[/QUOTE]

2) McCain-Feingold is the ultimate violation of the Constitution and free speech. It's a clear limit on political discourse. Money has always equaled access to political speech. When we were a young Republic it was how many pamphlets, flyers and other print media you could produce. Now it's how many :30 TV ads, :60 radio ads and banner advertising you can purchase. There is no difference between then and now except the medium being bought and paid for.

We've decided who can participate in political speech how close to an election and how much free speech they can have access to.

Of course the people that think flag burning is a violation of free speech vehemently disagree with me cause money and reality is involved not just principle.
 
No I think flag burning should be legal because it's a fucking piece of cloth. By banning flag burning they are taking away the freedoms that the flag holds. Thus doing more damage to the flag then actually burning it.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']2) McCain-Feingold is the ultimate violation of the Constitution and free speech. It's a clear limit on political discourse. Money has always equaled access to political speech. When we were a young Republic it was how many pamphlets, flyers and other print media you could produce. Now it's how many :30 TV ads, :60 radio ads and banner advertising you can purchase. There is no difference between then and now except the medium being bought and paid for.

We've decided who can participate in political speech how close to an election and how much free speech they can have access to.

Of course the people that think flag burning is a violation of free speech vehemently disagree with me cause money and reality is involved not just principle.[/QUOTE]

PAD these are just my feelings but I think the hardcore door to door needs to be pushed more. What sticks in your mind more, a 30 second mudslinging ad or someone coming to your door, explaining the stance on a candidates issues hardcore?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']2) McCain-Feingold is the ultimate violation of the Constitution and free speech. It's a clear limit on political discourse. Money has always equaled access to political speech. When we were a young Republic it was how many pamphlets, flyers and other print media you could produce. Now it's how many :30 TV ads, :60 radio ads and banner advertising you can purchase. There is no difference between then and now except the medium being bought and paid for.

We've decided who can participate in political speech how close to an election and how much free speech they can have access to.

Of course the people that think flag burning is a violation of free speech vehemently disagree with me cause money and reality is involved not just principle.[/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely certain how the above relates to what I posted, but I think I've pretty much given up on figuring out how your mind works... Anyway...

To start with, calling it the ultimate violation of the constitution and free speech is quite clearly pure rhetoric. There have been many, far worse violations of free speech than limiting how much money a political canidate can raise. That's a rather minor issue, though.

I would actually have to agree with you that there are several sections of McCain-Feingold that are rather questionable, constitutionally. Not the restrictions on donations to canidates - how much money you're permitted to give to a canidate isn't particularly a free speech issue.

The part of McCain-Feingold that's questionable is the limitations on what third-party advertisers can say during/around elections. I rather expect that to be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional sooner or later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top