Latest wave of Kelo (eminent domain) fallout hits New Jersey

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
Two cases, one involving a elderly veteran, Johnnie Stevens, being kicked out of his home to make way for luxury townhouses:

http://www.761st.com/index.php?page=News

The second one I don't have an article on, but saw today on Hannity & Colmes. It was another New Jersey case, where the city wants to take a mobile home community that is certainly not run down and has been there for more than 40 years and let developers build luxury apartments to bring in more tax revenue, kicking out 500 residents in the process.

Obviously both of these are spurred on by the idiotic and anti-constitutional Kelo Supreme Court decision. Since the addition of Roberts and probably soon to be Alito will not change the balance on this case (Rehnquist and O'Connor both voted in the minority), states that have yet to rein in these outrages need to get their acts together.

This is underway in my state

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768173846&path=!business&s=1045855934855

but they should have moved it through this year.
 
From what I read of that decision I agree that its constitutional. The reason it should be overturned is primarily an ideological one, the unconstitutional argument seemed very weak to me. The response was an emotional one, but the judges are supposed to rule on their interpretation of the constitution. Just as we can't have judges ruling on euthanasia, gay marriage and abortion according to their personal opinion, we can't have them do it here either.
 
Yeah, I believe Judge Roberts summarized the reason for the decision really well at his confirmation hearings.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']From what I read of that decision I agree that its constitutional. The reason it should be overturned is primarily an ideological one, the unconstitutional argument seemed very weak to me. The response was an emotional one, but the judges are supposed to rule on their interpretation of the constitution. Just as we can't have judges ruling on euthanasia, gay marriage and abortion according to their personal opinion, we can't have them do it here either.[/QUOTE]

Where in this text do you get the idea that the government is able to take from one group of private citizens and give to another group for the government's or private citizens' economic gain?

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

Tell me where that allows the government to take property from a private citizen to give to another. It specifically uses the phrase "public use."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Where in this text do you get the idea that the government is able to take from one group of private citizens and give to another group for the government's or private citizens' economic gain?



Tell me where that allows the government to take property from a private citizen to give to another. It specifically uses the phrase "public use."[/QUOTE]

But isn't generating jobs, taxes, revenue, as well as improving blighted areas consistent with "public use"? These things don't exist in a vacuum. For example, when the government has more money they can provide more services and improvements to the people of the city. Public use is more than putting an actual public service (such as a school) on that property.
 
I agree with the OP, taking property by eminent domain from one private owner, just to give it to another private owner, is not constitutional. Eminent domain is meant to take property for public use, for the public good. To build a school, or a highway, or what have you. Not for a state to take my house, so they can give it to someone else, so they can build a bigger house on it. Getting more tax revenue from the person they're giving it to, is not a justification. If that were true, every home owner in the country is in jeopardy, and any private developer can pick any piece of land, wherever they want, no matter who owns it, whats on it, or if they want to sell.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But isn't generating jobs, taxes, revenue, as well as improving blighted areas consistent with "public use"? These things don't exist in a vacuum. For example, when the government has more money they can provide more services and improvements to the people of the city. Public use is more than putting an actual public service (such as a school) on that property.[/QUOTE]

No, because the public will not have access to the land, nor will the public gain any direct benefit from the land (such as a military base for national security).
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']No, because the public will not have access to the land, nor will the public gain any direct benefit from the land (such as a military base for national security).[/QUOTE]

But they do benefit from the revenue, which is why I feel its consistent with public use. It's not that I like it and, if I remember correctly the SC justices who said it was constitutional also voiced concern, but to me that's within the concept of public use.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But isn't generating jobs, taxes, revenue, as well as improving blighted areas consistent with "public use"? These things don't exist in a vacuum. For example, when the government has more money they can provide more services and improvements to the people of the city. Public use is more than putting an actual public service (such as a school) on that property.[/QUOTE]

That's the Supreme Court's reasoning right there. But think about it: if you take this argument as valid, is there any difference, any at all, between public and private? The answer is no. So it's just like they disregarded the "public use" part of the Constitution.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That's the Supreme Court's reasoning right there. But think about it: if you take this argument as valid, is there any difference, any at all, between public and private? The answer is no. So it's just like they disregarded the "public use" part of the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

There is still a difference, because they do need to provide adequate compensation (undefined, but that's a problem regardless of this ruling since this simply increase the frequency), they do need to show, if challenged in court, that it can be considered public use as well. These are things they've been able to do for a long time, this simply increases how often it occurs. I can't realistically see how you think this means all land is public.

But, regardless, the court should not decide their opinion based on whether they like the ramifications. It is supposed to rule on whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. You've stated that you don't like what the term "public use" is interpreted as and therefore you find it unconstitutional, you didn't really argue why they were wrong in their interpretation of public use other than to say the term is too broad. The courts need to define what they feel public use means, they did that. It was not a decision on whether they liked that definition, or liked what would result, but whether increasing revenue for the benefit of the community is consistent with public use. 5-4 they decided it was.
 
But what if your a person that has an avrage income but is lucky enouch to have a middle sized house on beach front property? Itd take alot more to afford beach front property somewhere else. I saw a story like this somewhere and that was their defence.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']But what if your a person that has an avrage income but is lucky enouch to have a middle sized house on beach front property? Itd take alot more to afford beach front property somewhere else. I saw a story like this somewhere and that was their defence.[/QUOTE]

While that's true, and I said that its hard to define value. For example, a home may be worth 200,000 on the market, but the person wouldn't normally sell unless someone offered 600,000 due to sentimental or family reasons. Or a case as you suggest, where I can't find equivalent housing for anything close.

But this isn't really relevant, only because these were issues long before kelo. I know a whole strip of stores and 2 houses that were taken by my town to build parking for the commuter rail (people had to park in private lots previously). Many of them did not want to leave and, while given more than market value, that was not enough relocate to an equivalent location for the shop owner I knew. Most others did not want to move, but I don't know their reasons. This happened about 5 years ago.
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']But what if your a person that has an avrage income but is lucky enouch to have a middle sized house on beach front property? Itd take alot more to afford beach front property somewhere else. I saw a story like this somewhere and that was their defence.[/QUOTE]

AZ is attempting to explain how it is justifiable not how un-capitalistic it is. Fair market value is one of those wonderful concepts created for tax and insurance purposes, being entirely un-capitalistic in nature.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There is still a difference, because they do need to provide adequate compensation (undefined, but that's a problem regardless of this ruling since this simply increase the frequency), they do need to show, if challenged in court, that it can be considered public use as well. These are things they've been able to do for a long time, this simply increases how often it occurs. I can't realistically see how you think this means all land is public.

But, regardless, the court should not decide their opinion based on whether they like the ramifications. It is supposed to rule on whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. You've stated that you don't like what the term "public use" is interpreted as and therefore you find it unconstitutional, you didn't really argue why they were wrong in their interpretation of public use other than to say the term is too broad. The courts need to define what they feel public use means, they did that. It was not a decision on whether they liked that definition, or liked what would result, but whether increasing revenue for the benefit of the community is consistent with public use. 5-4 they decided it was.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to take that view, then you jeopardize the entire concept of "private property". If someone happens to like your property, they can just make the argument that they'll generate more tax revenue than you, and take it. Or to take it a step further, lets say you own a small business. A big chain wants to put you out of business, so they argue that they'll generate more tax revenue, and get the land.

This essentially makes your ownership rights forfeit to anyone who comes along and says they'll generate more tax revenue. We might as well abandon the concept of "private" property entirely, if this is going to be the case.

Here's Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion on this, which I agree with:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html
 
[quote name='dafoomie']If you're going to take that view, then you jeopardize the entire concept of "private property". If someone happens to like your property, they can just make the argument that they'll generate more tax revenue than you, and take it. Or to take it a step further, lets say you own a small business. A big chain wants to put you out of business, so they argue that they'll generate more tax revenue, and get the land.

This essentially makes your ownership rights forfeit to anyone who comes along and says they'll generate more tax revenue. We might as well abandon the concept of "private" property entirely, if this is going to be the case.

Here's Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion on this, which I agree with:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html[/QUOTE]

Well even with so many incidents getting media coverage they're still the exception, even if they are more common now than before, not that it has an effect on my opinion either way. But again it has to be understood that believing something to be constitutional or unconstitutional is very different from thinking it is a just or beneficial law. Unless they come up with an amendment then it is constitutional as far as I'm concerned. If this was focused on it may very well pass.

Also, in that link you provided I found this stating the opinion of the court:

But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public.” Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a “public purpose.”
Click to expand...

Also all the ones I've heard of have been in the context of development plans, simply transfering from one person to the next. In that same opinion:

It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A’s property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot,17 the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise.18 They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use.19
Click to expand...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html
 
[quote name='Vampire Hunter D']But what if your a person that has an avrage income but is lucky enouch to have a middle sized house on beach front property? Itd take alot more to afford beach front property somewhere else. I saw a story like this somewhere and that was their defence.[/QUOTE]

It seems to me there should be a requirement that whenever emminent domain is exercised, the benefiting party should be required to locate and purchase an equivalent property for the affected homeowner. So in the mentioned example, a middle sized house with beach front property should be required if that is what the homeowner wants.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']If you're going to take that view, then you jeopardize the entire concept of "private property". If someone happens to like your property, they can just make the argument that they'll generate more tax revenue than you, and take it. Or to take it a step further, lets say you own a small business. A big chain wants to put you out of business, so they argue that they'll generate more tax revenue, and get the land.

This essentially makes your ownership rights forfeit to anyone who comes along and says they'll generate more tax revenue. We might as well abandon the concept of "private" property entirely, if this is going to be the case.

Here's Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion on this, which I agree with:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html[/QUOTE]

+1 to what he said. In any plain reading of the Constitution you can't get out a meaning of "public use" means private use that the government likes.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well even with so many incidents getting media coverage they're still the exception, even if they are more common now than before, not that it has an effect on my opinion either way. But again it has to be understood that believing something to be constitutional or unconstitutional is very different from thinking it is a just or beneficial law. Unless they come up with an amendment then it is constitutional as far as I'm concerned. If this was focused on it may very well pass.

Also, in that link you provided I found this stating the opinion of the court:



Also all the ones I've heard of have been in the context of development plans, simply transfering from one person to the next. In that same opinion:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html[/QUOTE]
OK, so in his opinion, he's taking into consideration whether the entire development plan serves the public good, and constitutes a public use, instead of their individual case.

And there are cases where I would support such an action, as outlined by O'Connor's opinion, if the overall property your taking by eminent domain is actually harming the public, then taking it to use for a private purpose does constitute a public use, even if some of that property isn't blighted or harming anyone, the overall benefit outweighs that.

This is not what happened here. Pfizer built a plant, and then the city decided they wanted some development nearby, so they gave the NLDC, a private company, basically carte blanche to do whatever they want, wherever they wanted to do it. But they're replacing perfectly good neighborhoods, not blighted slums and ghettos, simply because they think that their use for the land is better than what the residents are doing with it now. That is neither serving the public good, nor does it constitute a public use.

How does replacing an entire neighborhood, a perfectly good neighborhood, to build offices, condos, and a hotel, constitute a public use? Why is it necessary to take that particular place? Why can't they do this through normal means? Why does the *entire neighborhood* need to be bulldozed? Wouldn't you consider residents of the neighborhood to be "the public"? How does this help them? In the case of the particular people in the suit, their houses are being replaced by "housing units".

They picked this neighborhood because its very desirable land, a lot of waterfront property along the Thames river. Not because it absolutely had to be there, but because they could make a lot of money on it. Not the government, but the developers.

And why is it that everyones house is going to be bulldozed, and their land taken away from them, only to be replaced by other houses, when a politically connected "Italian Social Club" gets to stay, and they'll build around them?

This is an absolute outrage. I like the quote from Justice O'Connor:

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
 
I'm really surprised you're defending this decision Alonzo. You do know that the people harmed the most by this kind of rob-the-poor-to-feed-the-rich government are the very poor and especially those without political connections, right? Nobody's going to take Trump Tower, but a senior veteran with cancer who has a home he's lived in for 50 years but is on land a developer wants to put condos on, I guess that's fair game? This decision, antithetical to our entire history as a nation, is a massive weapon for government to use against normal citizens for the benefit of the wealthy and well-connected.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']OK, so in his opinion, he's taking into consideration whether the entire development plan serves the public good, and constitutes a public use, instead of their individual case.

And there are cases where I would support such an action, as outlined by O'Connor's opinion, if the overall property your taking by eminent domain is actually harming the public, then taking it to use for a private purpose does constitute a public use, even if some of that property isn't blighted or harming anyone, the overall benefit outweighs that.

This is not what happened here. Pfizer built a plant, and then the city decided they wanted some development nearby, so they gave the NLDC, a private company, basically carte blanche to do whatever they want, wherever they wanted to do it. But they're replacing perfectly good neighborhoods, not blighted slums and ghettos, simply because they think that their use for the land is better than what the residents are doing with it now. That is neither serving the public good, nor does it constitute a public use.

How does replacing an entire neighborhood, a perfectly good neighborhood, to build offices, condos, and a hotel, constitute a public use? Why is it necessary to take that particular place? Why can't they do this through normal means? Why does the *entire neighborhood* need to be bulldozed? Wouldn't you consider residents of the neighborhood to be "the public"? How does this help them? In the case of the particular people in the suit, their houses are being replaced by "housing units".

They picked this neighborhood because its very desirable land, a lot of waterfront property along the Thames river. Not because it absolutely had to be there, but because they could make a lot of money on it. Not the government, but the developers.

And why is it that everyones house is going to be bulldozed, and their land taken away from them, only to be replaced by other houses, when a politically connected "Italian Social Club" gets to stay, and they'll build around them?

This is an absolute outrage. I like the quote from Justice O'Connor:

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."[/QUOTE]

The whole issue of taxes means that, even though the developers make a lot of money, so does the government.

The example of the social club is the benefit of being politically connected, its a problem throughout government, not just an emmenent domain issue.

The whole point is though that the government making money, or improving blighted areas, is of use to the community. It can bring businesses, provide increased funding for schools, police etc. Therefore it does qualify as public use in my mind.

If they want to make the most revenue then obviously having valuable property get maximum use is preferable over less desirable property.

From the same opinion I quoted earlier:

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Douglas refused to evaluate this claim in isolation, deferring instead to the legislative and agency judgment that the area “must be planned as a whole” for the plan to be successful. Id., at 34. The Court explained that “community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis–lot by lot, building by building.” Id., at 35. The public use underlying the taking was unequivocally affirmed:

“We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive… . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled.
Click to expand...


I'm really surprised you're defending this decision Alonzo. You do know that the people harmed the most by this kind of rob-the-poor-to-feed-the-rich government are the very poor and especially those without political connections, right? Nobody's going to take Trump Tower, but a senior veteran with cancer who has a home he's lived in for 50 years but is on land a developer wants to put condos on, I guess that's fair game? This decision, antithetical to our entire history as a nation, is a massive weapon for government to use against normal citizens for the benefit of the wealthy and well-connected.
Click to expand...

Well, trump tower is worth a lot more than a poor neighborhood. Really though, your argument lies more with the construction of the 5th amenment than me.

Though I'd argue that the popular history of our nation is much more idealistic than what actually occured. And, either way, it is merely an extension of what already occurs. Bulldozing shops and houses to build a commuter rail parking lot is less benefical to the public than increasing tax revenue, yet it has long been legal.

Again though, this is an opinion of what the 5th amendment, and particularly "public use" means. It is not an opinion on whether I like the definition or what the ruling can result in. It's not my fault if the 5th amendment isn't siding with the poor.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The whole issue of taxes means that, even though the developers make a lot of money, so does the government.

The example of the social club is the benefit of being politically connected, its a problem throughout government, not just an emmenent domain issue.

The whole point is though that the government making money, or improving blighted areas, is of use to the community. It can bring businesses, provide increased funding for schools, police etc. Therefore it does qualify as public use in my mind.

If they want to make the most revenue then obviously having valuable property get maximum use is preferable over less desirable property.

From the same opinion I quoted earlier:






Well, trump tower is worth a lot more than a poor neighborhood. Really though, your argument lies more with the construction of the 5th amenment than me.

Though I'd argue that the popular history of our nation is much more idealistic than what actually occured. And, either way, it is merely an extension of what already occurs. Bulldozing shops and houses to build a commuter rail parking lot is less benefical to the public than increasing tax revenue, yet it has long been legal.

Again though, this is an opinion of what the 5th amendment, and particularly "public use" means. It is not an opinion on whether I like the definition or what the ruling can result in. It's not my fault if the 5th amendment isn't siding with the poor.[/QUOTE]
And again, I still say that this does not at all qualify as a public use.

Have you ever been to Southie? Blue collar area, though its been attracting some higher income people because of its proximity to Downtown Boston.

Lets say I want to completely tear down Southie, replace every triple decker with luxury apartments and condos, build huge hotels, and replace every mom+pop store with a chain. Would that be a public use? It would increase tax revenue.

I would say that its not. I disagree that increased tax revenue alone qualifies it as a public use. And I would also say that any increase in tax revenue would be negated by the irreperable harm caused to the public, the people that live there, by destroying their homes and businesses. If we're talking a large scale plan, then we're talking about a great deal of people. If we're talking about a smaller plan, then any increase in tax revenue is negligible at best.

This completely goes against both the letter and the intent of the constitution. Eminent Domain is not necessary for economic development. While its true that the definition of "public use" has been expanded over the years to include "public welfare" and "public interest", I completely disagree that increased tax revenue alone serves the public interest. If we're talking tax revenue alone, the increase, if any, does benefit a lot of people, but in an extremely small way, while causing an immesurably great amount of harm to a smaller group of people. Does the majority of the people benefitting in an extremely small way, outweigh the minority of people, being harmed in an extremely great way?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The whole point is though that the government making money, or improving blighted areas, is of use to the community. It can bring businesses, provide increased funding for schools, police etc. Therefore it does qualify as public use in my mind. [/QUOTE]

Let's be clear we are not talking about blighted areas. The Kelo case and the cases I pointed to in the OP are/were not blighted areas, they were well-kept and established neighborhoods that the local government decided it wanted to raze to please some well-connected developer.

Secondly, if we take your interpretation of the Constitution, as the Supreme Court evidently did, as I pointed out before that basically removes the "public use" phrase from the Constitution. If public and private are basically the same, what was the point of including "public use" in the amendment? The answer is that the amendment was never, ever meant to be used in this way and the Kelo decision is a perversion of traditional American property rights.
 
Dafoomie, they have torn down entire areas of boston before. They tore down the west end in the 1950's, my mother lived there until her family was forced to move from their apartment.

I don't really like the opinion, though I'm probably not quite as opposed as you are. But since I don't like it my only point is that I find it to be the proper ruling on whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional. If someone argues that its unconstitutional, beyond saying they simply don't like what could result, then I don't really care.

[quote name='elprincipe']Let's be clear we are not talking about blighted areas. The Kelo case and the cases I pointed to in the OP are/were not blighted areas, they were well-kept and established neighborhoods that the local government decided it wanted to raze to please some well-connected developer.[/quote]

Blighted is just one reason, not the only one.

Secondly, if we take your interpretation of the Constitution, as the Supreme Court evidently did, as I pointed out before that basically removes the "public use" phrase from the Constitution. If public and private are basically the same, what was the point of including "public use" in the amendment? The answer is that the amendment was never, ever meant to be used in this way and the Kelo decision is a perversion of traditional American property rights.
Click to expand...

But it's not the same. Public land does not need to be paid for to be used and, barring environmental restrictions or things like that, no reason needs to be given.

Though the constitution is more than the original intent. If rulings were based on the original intent, and not what the current interpretation is (often previous rulings play into this), then there would still be slavery, women wouldn't vote etc. I'm not comparing the two, but it is just an example as to why the actual intent of the authors often plays little role in the end.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But it's not the same. Public land does not need to be paid for to be used and, barring environmental restrictions or things like that, no reason needs to be given.[/quote]

Not true. It needs to be taken for a public use, as we have been discussing. It's pretty explicit in the relevant amendment.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though the constitution is more than the original intent. If rulings were based on the original intent, and not what the current interpretation is (often previous rulings play into this), then there would still be slavery, women wouldn't vote etc. I'm not comparing the two, but it is just an example as to why the actual intent of the authors often plays little role in the end.[/QUOTE]

Nope, the Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery and allow women to vote. Your comparison is not valid. And interpretations should be based on original intent because that's what was passed into law by elected representatives, not what an unelected judge conjures up out of twisting the language as we have in Kelo and more famously in Roe v Wade.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Not true. It needs to be taken for a public use, as we have been discussing. It's pretty explicit in the relevant amendment.
[/quote]

You misread the satement. I said explanations for using public land need not be given. Which is the distinction, still, between public and private land. Private land needs reasons, such as increasing revenue, development projects, schools etc.


Nope, the Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery and allow women to vote. Your comparison is not valid. And interpretations should be based on original intent because that's what was passed into law by elected representatives, not what an unelected judge conjures up out of twisting the language as we have in Kelo and more famously in Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

Fine, it wasn't the best example. A better one would be the death penalty and what is required to make it constitutional. Two points were argued, one that it violated the 8th amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment (hardly the intent of the authors) and it violated the 14th amendments requirement for equal protection under the law (again, not the authors intent). Later, with the introduction of aggravating conditions by states that had the death penalty, it was ruled constitutional because it did not violate the 14th amendment. The main argument had originally been it violated the 8th amendment (4 judges) but the deciding factor had been the 3 judges who ruled it violated the 14th amendment originally.

It all comes down to how things are interpreted in a modern context. The constitution evolves and often takes on very different meanings in the end. Public use has long been considered more than simply putting a public service, such as a school, on that land. Such a narrow view of the word is not consistent with how the term has been understood by the SC, and such a narrow view is not held by those who opposed the ruling either (just not quite as broad).

Though I really don't think you want to compare abortion to Kelo. Do people have a right to privacy? Yes. Nowhere in the constitution, or in medical science, does it indicate that something 1 month into development is a human in anything other than the biological sense, and therefore there is no reason for any court to interperet that being as a human. It needs to be judged as a full human being and nothing, other than sentimental or religious logic, suggests that it is. Any argument to ban abortion starts on the premise that it is fully human, something nowhere to be found in the constitution.

Abortion, particularly in the first trimester, is much safer (about 10 times) than giving birth or even recieving penicillin, so womens health is only an argument for abortion. Banning it violates a persons control over their own body when their actions pose less of a threat to themselves than going through with the pregnancy. Essentially it can't be argued they're a danger to themselves. It can be argued abortion is the murder of the fetus, but not unless the unborn child is itself considered a person. That is why laws against aborting a more developed fetus, the type discussed in partial birth abortion, is more likely to be ruled constitutional. This assumes it allows exceptions for the womens health.

Kelo comes down to simply what is the current understanding of the term public use, abortion has multiple constitutional reasons, not just 2 words which are not taken in such a narrow sense as you suggest. You can agree or disagree whether its contitutional though.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It all comes down to how things are interpreted in a modern context. The constitution evolves and often takes on very different meanings in the end. Public use has long been considered more than simply putting a public service, such as a school, on that land. Such a narrow view of the word is not consistent with how the term has been understood by the SC, and such a narrow view is not held by those who opposed the ruling either (just not quite as broad).[/QUOTE]

I think this is our main argument. You would argue that the court must change the Constitution to fit the times. I would argue that duly elected representatives of the people have the duty to change the Constitution to fit the times, as they have done 27 times in the past. Your argument positions unelected judges deciding current social and political issues by twisting the word of the law to fit what they believe is right without regard to what elected representatives have voted (or not voted) into law.

The Kelo decision is an excellent example of this point. When the Constitution was written and the way it has always been understood was not to allow the government to take land for the reason it did in Kelo. The case involved judges twisting the wording of the Constitution to fit what they thought should be the law. If the people wanted the government to be able to take non-blighted land from one citizen and give it to another citizen or corporation for an economic purpose, they would have passed that into law through their elected representatives. Since they did not, the Kelo decision is an abomination and anti-constitutional, much like "separate but equal."
 
The problem with seperate but equal is that it was impossible, and the court was too foolish to understand that.

But what you see as twisting I see as placing in modern context. It takes the way the court has defined the terms previously and what modern standards are.
 
Honestly I can see both arguments here and think el as well has an extremely valid one when arguing what "public use" means. I see where alonzo is coming from but lets face it alonzo, not everyone will think like you on the court and others will use what you're saying as el plainly put forth to manipulate emminent domain to allow real estate developers to snatch and grab from anyone who is poor and does not have connections to give to money, both new and old, spoiled(think Rentiers) brats who deserve a switch to their body and those who have toiled for it, the latter opposing but considering it an afterthought. Regardless I see nothing but harm coming from this as evidenced so clearly earlier in the discussion and must add this is what potentially happens to any legal document over the course of years regardless of how airtight the wording may have seen since meanings change over times. Sorry for being redundant in some aspects here ya'll.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But what you see as twisting I see as placing in modern context. It takes the way the court has defined the terms previously and what modern standards are.[/QUOTE]

Again, that's our difference. You want judges to make changes to laws based on their own personal current interpretation, while I'd say that is a very dangerous game and changes to laws should be made solely by our elected representatives.

If laws aren't up to snuff in a modern context, legislatures can change them. It's happened many, many times, and this is a good thing. That is why we no longer have slavery and women are allowed to vote. But that is not a judge's job. A judge's job is merely to apply the law, through its original wording and intent, to cases that come before him.

Here's a good question: if in the future "freedom of speech" were to be defined by society more in terms as freedom of just political speech, would you stick to your position?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Again, that's our difference. You want judges to make changes to laws based on their own personal current interpretation, while I'd say that is a very dangerous game and changes to laws should be made solely by our elected representatives.

If laws aren't up to snuff in a modern context, legislatures can change them. It's happened many, many times, and this is a good thing. That is why we no longer have slavery and women are allowed to vote. But that is not a judge's job. A judge's job is merely to apply the law, through its original wording and intent, to cases that come before him.[/quote]

Only ruling based on the original concept definitions and precise original intent is not the way the courts work. That's how the bible is supposed work, not the constitution. Its how the concepts apply. Freedom of religion means quite a bit more today than it did to the founders, even though the concept is the same. We give the term a much broader meaning now.

My whole point was the phrasing you use to state my argument. It's not twisting words to meet personal opinion, I've done everything but. I said a particular ruling was accurate while stating I do not agree with it.

As far as I'm concerned the role of the court is to decide if laws are consistent with the constitution. In this case the city did not violate existing laws put in place by the legislators, the constitutionality was the issue. Precedence is very important to the courts and while not binding, has a role, barring previous error. Eminent domain has long meant more than simply placing a physical public building there, something dafoomie acknowledged. While his argument focused more directly on it being unconsitutional, the argument you're using seems to be more opinion of the ruling and what it means outside the case before the court. States are still free to pass laws forbidding its use in many of these instances, if the state legislators are so concerned then they should take action by outlawing such uses.

Here's a good question: if in the future "freedom of speech" were to be defined by society more in terms as freedom of just political speech, would you stick to your position?
Click to expand...

Definitions tend to expand, unlike in your example. This is difficult to answer since it seems to violate the definition and the general concept, and would be purely a societal basis in the situation you present. Of course the same things that cause definitions to expand can theoretically cause them to become more narrow. But there seems to be no continuity here. Public use and public purpose can be viewed as the same, and there is a direct connection between revenue and the public. Your example seems akin to saying everyone over 50 could someday be considered the legal equivalent of a 5 year old. I can't imagine how that could come about. But if by some strange turn of events that were the case, and it met all the conditions (again don't know how), then I'd have no choice regardless of my opinion. Again there does not have to be a connection between personal opinion and judicial decisions. It's like if there was an amendment were to say all homosexuals should be shot, thats what a SC judge has to go by.

I never thought it would come to this but, in the words of john roberts "If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution.". Just because I'm not happy with a result or what it means for the country doesn't mean it's a bad ruling. I don't like the state of gun rights in this country, I think the constitution, as written, refers specifically to a militia, but there is an implied right of the individuals there as well. No right to use them outside of a militia is protected, but to have them is protected as far as I'm concerned. My political opinion is at odds with that. For example I have great respect for san francisco for banning guns, but it's not constitutional.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Only ruling based on the original concept definitions and precise original intent is not the way the courts work. That's how the bible is supposed work, not the constitution. Its how the concepts apply. Freedom of religion means quite a bit more today than it did to the founders, even though the concept is the same. We give the term a much broader meaning now.[/quote]

I'd like to know how "freedom of religion" is different now than it was in the Founders' days? Surely you don't mean the recent attacks on the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust"?

And if it isn't the way some courts work, it certainly should be. Why should judges feel free to substitute their judgments for legislators and, yes, twist words to create new meanings? That has nothing to do with what they are supposed to do.

Now, you could argue that in the past a court has misinterpreted language in a law, but that's not what we're talking about in Kelo. In Kelo they basically disregarded the 'public use" section of the amendment.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Definitions tend to expand, unlike in your example. This is difficult to answer since it seems to violate the definition and the general concept, and would be purely a societal basis in the situation you present. Of course the same things that cause definitions to expand can theoretically cause them to become more narrow. But there seems to be no continuity here. Public use and public purpose can be viewed as the same, and there is a direct connection between revenue and the public. Your example seems akin to saying everyone over 50 could someday be considered the legal equivalent of a 5 year old. I can't imagine how that could come about. But if by some strange turn of events that were the case, and it met all the conditions (again don't know how), then I'd have no choice regardless of my opinion. Again there does not have to be a connection between personal opinion and judicial decisions. It's like if there was an amendment were to say all homosexuals should be shot, thats what a SC judge has to go by.[/quote]

Wow, that's a pretty bigoted statement against South Carolina, even though you know full well there never was nor ever will be any such law.

So you'd have no choice? You'd accept that interpretation, that you weren't allowed freedom of speech other than political speech? I'm shocked and awed. You wouldn't think that was wrong and unconstitutional? I guess under your line of reasoning that would be the case. Certainly it's the case with your Kelo reasoning. I think I can count on 95+% of the country agreeing with me on this one, though (thank goodness).

"Public use" and "public purpose" are not the same BTW. If the people writing the law wanted to say "public purpose," they would have. But the bigger issue here is that the Kelo decision has basically deleted "public use" from the Constitution. Tell me, if the government can take any land any time for any reason and have it considered "public use," is that not simply taking that condition away from eminent domain seizures? You bet your ass it is. Therefore, the 5 judges who were in the majority are guilty of re-writing the Constitution to fit their own "modern sensibilities" as you in particular might put it. We should all see from this foolish and anti-American decision how dangerous this line of reasoning is.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'd like to know how "freedom of religion" is different now than it was in the Founders' days? Surely you don't mean the recent attacks on the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust"?[/quote]

Prayer in schools, removal of religious texts from public buildings etc. Its in the same spirit, but not a result intended. Though "in god we trust" did not appear on any currency until the 1860's (a period of increased religious sentiment), almost a century later for paper currency. It is constitutional because it essentially has lost meaning. If that term held a strong religious message then it would not be constitutional.

And if it isn't the way some courts work, it certainly should be. Why should judges feel free to substitute their judgments for legislators and, yes, twist words to create new meanings? That has nothing to do with what they are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

This is like the abortion thing. You just don't get that no matter how many times you ask "why can they twist and create new meanings" I'm not going to answer that the way you want, since that's definately is not what they're doing as far as I'm concerned.

Now, you could argue that in the past a court has misinterpreted language in a law, but that's not what we're talking about in Kelo. In Kelo they basically disregarded the 'public use" section of the amendment.
Click to expand...

It understands public use as more than simply public facility or property. Revenue is certainly part of the public use, everytime you enter a library, school etc. you are in a public building funded by public taxes. If an area generates more tax revenue then that money will go towards public uses.


Wow, that's a pretty bigoted statement against South Carolina, even though you know full well there never was nor ever will be any such law.
Click to expand...

This ones funny. It was a hypothetical situation and "if there was" seemed to explain that as far as I was concerned. It was done to illustrate that if thats what the consitution said then thats what the correct ruling is, regardless of personal opinion. Also, most people assume that, especially in the context of the argument since it deals almost entirely with the supreme court, SC judge means supreme court, not south carolina judge.

So you'd have no choice? You'd accept that interpretation, that you weren't allowed freedom of speech other than political speech? I'm shocked and awed. You wouldn't think that was wrong and unconstitutional? I guess under your line of reasoning that would be the case.
Click to expand...

Well, I explained how I think that was a very odd example that didn't make much sense. I don't understand how that could come about. My answer is essentially "if that's what it is then that's what it is". Judges are not supposed to rule as to which ruling they like best.

"Public use" and "public purpose" are not the same BTW. If the people writing the law wanted to say "public purpose," they would have. But the bigger issue here is that the Kelo decision has basically deleted "public use" from the Constitution. Tell me, if the government can take any land any time for any reason and have it considered "public use," is that not simply taking that condition away from eminent domain seizures? You bet your ass it is. Therefore, the 5 judges who were in the majority are guilty of re-writing the Constitution to fit their own "modern sensibilities" as you in particular might put it. We should all see from this foolish and anti-American decision how dangerous this line of reasoning is.
Click to expand...

But tax revenues are used by the public. They are getting a public use out of the revenue.

Also, they can not take any land for any reason. The decision is focused on a development plan. It is not dealing with 1 to 1 transfer of property, that goes beyond what the ruling states. That could very well be another SC case.
 
The only time I see eminent domain as a good thing is when the entire publie can benefit from it i.e. building a highway. The only people benefiting from a condo complex, hotel and retail space are the developers.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But tax revenues are used by the public. They are getting a public use out of the revenue.

Also, they can not take any land for any reason. The decision is focused on a development plan. It is not dealing with 1 to 1 transfer of property, that goes beyond what the ruling states. That could very well be another SC case.[/QUOTE]

The rest is getting into a circular kind of pattern and I think we've basically made the points we're going to make, so I'm going to drop it.

However, you still haven't answered my question of how they have more or less deleted "public use" from the Constitution. And they can take it for any reason; they can just say whatever reason they're taking it for will generate more tax revenue. So what would be illegal under this new ruling, would you say, to take? I can't see anything....so long as some rich person or corporation could make more money using the property a different way.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
However, you still haven't answered my question of how they have more or less deleted "public use" from the Constitution. And they can take it for any reason; they can just say whatever reason they're taking it for will generate more tax revenue. So what would be illegal under this new ruling, would you say, to take? I can't see anything....so long as some rich person or corporation could make more money using the property a different way.[/QUOTE]

I've answered the public use thing multiple times. The exact way you want me to answer I can't because the question itself is wrong in my mind. Revenue and such is used by the public. Its not solely the government who gets the money, tax money goes to provide many public services. If public use was deleted then there wouldn't even be a debate, the people would still have their homes.

Though this really refers to an overall development plan. Taking my home with the intention of giving the land to starbucks (which would generate more revenue) wouldn't be covered in this ruling. Rulings are not laws and deal with the case before them. For that reason, in a case like this, they would not continue on and decide what cannot be allowed. Theres plenty of things that future court rulings may or may not allow.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've answered the public use thing multiple times. The exact way you want me to answer I can't because the question itself is wrong in my mind. Revenue and such is used by the public. Its not solely the government who gets the money, tax money goes to provide many public services. If public use was deleted then there wouldn't even be a debate, the people would still have their homes.

Though this really refers to an overall development plan. Taking my home with the intention of giving the land to starbucks (which would generate more revenue) wouldn't be covered in this ruling. Rulings are not laws and deal with the case before them. For that reason, in a case like this, they would not continue on and decide what cannot be allowed. Theres plenty of things that future court rulings may or may not allow.[/QUOTE]

No, rulings are not laws, but they do set precedent. Looking at the Kelo decision, a lower court would be ruling correctly to allow a local government to seize your house and give it to Starbucks, you betcha. Similar situation to Kelo: well-kept homes being razed to hand over to a business so the politically well-connected can make a profit and let the government have more tax money to waste.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']No, rulings are not laws, but they do set precedent. Looking at the Kelo decision, a lower court would be ruling correctly to allow a local government to seize your house and give it to Starbucks, you betcha. Similar situation to Kelo: well-kept homes being razed to hand over to a business so the politically well-connected can make a profit and let the government have more tax money to waste.[/QUOTE]

I know. I said that because you asked what would be illegal. I said that, unlike a law put forth by the legislative branch, they are only dealing with the case before them. They are not going to answer questions not brought up by the case they're ruling on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top