The Republicans Strike Back! Eminent Domain Strangled

[LeeRyder]

The Congress has voted (mostly along partisan lines, oddly enough) to effectively starve (using the withholding of federal funds) any city, state or local govt that uses the Eminent domain ruling this week against citizens.

Being a republican, I'm happy my party has come to the front lines of this issue and said, very loudly and clearly "NO!" to this... but I amn equally surprised that the democrats actually want this as shown here in the vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll350.xml

Anyways, a clear and decisive victory for America and Americans.

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted Thursday to try to restrict the effect of what has proven to be a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling that found that private property can be taken for private development if government authorities decided it would benefit the larger community.

The House passed the amendment to the Treasury/Transportation spending bill, 231-189.

House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, said he believes the Supreme Court issued a horrible decision.

"In the post-Kelo world, someone could knock on your door and tell you that the city council has voted to give your house to someone else because they have nicer plans for the property," DeLay said.

With growing bipartisan support, the House voted for a piece of legislation that could undo the impact of the Supreme Court decision. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., would cut off federal funding to any governmental entity that uses the expanded eminent domain (search) power to take land for economic development projects. Congress has used this approach before.

"I think that a case in point is the Hyde amendment that denied Medicaid ( search) funding on abortions," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said. "Roe v. Wade was a constitutional decision of the United States Supreme Court, but they also held the Hyde amendment constitutional in that Congress does have the power of the purse and can decide what to fund and what not to fund."

The measure will be offered in the Senate by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"We will be working together to accomplish our goal ... to reign back in this broad interpretation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in a way that protects all of us from the awesome power of government to take private property for private uses," Cornyn said.

Though Republicans have pushed the amendment, key Democrats like Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Maxine Waters of California have signed on as co-sponsors. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., lined up against the measure.

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said.

That's exactly the point, those in Congress upset by the Supreme Court decision say. They say they believe very few state and local governments would be willing to risk losing federal funding in order to help a developer finance a private project.

http://fox-news.com/story/0,2933,161279,00.html

 

[Lord]

im happy

i felt as if that was a very stupid law that they passed

 

[dgridley]

I wonder if Souter's predicament prompted this? Nice to hear in any case.. but sad to see it took federal intervention.

 

[LeeRyder]

lol, thanks

I find it odd that more haven't added their two cents in here. Perhaps out of shame of being a democrat since their party seems to endorse this so much and how much everyone else (that not a politician) is very much against it?

I really dont know... but hey.. America wins. Regardless of Party, the GOP defended Americans today... amen to that.

 

[sunken]

The law is obviously written very badly and that is not the fault of the Supreme Court. How many murderers walk because of badly written laws that have to be thrown out as it's not the court's place to create the law, but to follow what the law says verbatim? In this particular case, the law does not serve the people's interests certainly. No one wants their land taken away from them by some greedy city council who might get more taxes out of it.

Should Congress intervene? Of course they should. They are the ones that write the laws. The law is flawed, so it is their duty to fix the law so that it cannot be interpreted as an open invitation to steal your property. But instead of doing that, they make a knee-jerk bandaid solution to the problem to make brownie points in the short run.

At first glance, cutting off federal funding is a good solution. No state or county would want to risk such in theory. But there will always be greed and people who can't turn down a chance to pocket for their own gain, caring little for those with the most to lose. The whole state or county should not have to suffer from loss of funds over someone's search for riches.

Not only that, but it starts a bad precedent. That Congress can basically starve any county or state entity if it goes with any Supreme Court decision they happen to disagree with. In otherwords, if your state supports abortion, they could hold back funding until the entity were forced to change their mind.

Not supporting the solution is not the same as supporting the problem. I really wish people would start seeing that the world is not black or white. It IS a terrible law that should be stricken and rewritten. It opens the door to a lot of greed and theft of property. But that doesn't mean that one has to agree that the proposed solution is the fix for the problem and not just another reaction that sounds good in theory, but has lasting implications. Those usually have come back to bite us later on.

 

[LeeRyder]

sunken, it's not a law. the supreme court doesnt make laws, they decide cases based on the constitution and it's interpretation and legal issues. In this case, they decided that the constitution does not grant us the right to own property as we see fit, but instead decided that the constitution was written to protect business.

 

[sunken]

as it's not the court's place to create the law, but to follow what the law says verbatim?

So where did I say that the court makes the laws? Course, it's a wonderful debate tactic. Find a line you can slam and ignore the rest.

To me, the constitution is the ultimate set of laws by which all laws are based, and thus is a law in itself. It is not perfect by any means. The Court is there to strictly adhere to it's text which leaves no room for personal beliefs and agendas. And that is how the court should react. To what is actually written. I haven't seen anyone really say that the constitution cannot be interpreted as such and their ruling was strictly on their belief.

A flaw that affects all Americans badly should be addressed via the amendment process. IMO that is what Congress should be taking up, a permanent and well tempered fix. Instead they go for a knee jerk reaction that looks really good to the press, but in the end, may be quite difficult to implement within the political structure. Not to mention the obviously bad precedent it sets that Congress has the power to override any supreme court decision they don't like by withholding funds.

I'm against the taking of anyone's land for greed. I am certainly sorry that the constitution has such provisions in it that don't work for the people. I'm glad that Congress brought it up to address, but I don't agree with their method by which they chose to solve the problem. To me, the solution they propose has much deeper issues that aren't apparent on the surface.

 

[LeeRyder]

hmm..well I think if the supreme court wants to get into judicial activism, the congress did.. congressional activism.

wont find me downplaying something done (regardlessof the means) that helps out Americans... especially something as decidedly corrupt as the supreme asshats..ermm.. court

That said, yes.. a fix needs to be put into place so that the justices cannot make sweeping judgements like this in the interests of corporations that has the potential to affect negatively every man woman and child in the USA.

Especially a judgement that is so close to communism it is sickening.

 

[theparrot]

The problem with this method, is it itself is subject to a court challenge. It could be subject to a ruling that it is not a federal issue, but rather a local issue. It really needs a clear law that we really do own our property. Of course we never really do, even without this blatently poor rulling, a local government could tax people out of their property by raising the taxes up till the people in the property could not afford to pay them any longer.

We never own our houses, we just rent them from the bank and government it seems.

Of course should someone trip on the local government built sidewalk out front, guess who gets sued as the 'owner'. all the responsibilties, none of the real rights.

 

[primacomputer]

sunken, it's not a law.

Of course eminent domain is the law, or rather a large collection of laws. They can't just go around taking away peoples property without a law. It's that whole "without due process of law thing"

The laws are made on a state/local level. All the supreme court said is that people at this level decide what is in the public interest. Essentially what they said was that this is a local issue and that it has to be dealt with at that level. This is the kind of small government reasoning that any honest God fearing Republican should applaud.

 

[LeeRyder]

I think ya got it backwords there.. as evidenced by the democraps being the ones to want to do nothing and the republicans taking action.

please see my first post here about this for the vote tally to clarify your erroneous intentions.

 

[primacomputer]

I think ya got it backwords there.. as evidenced by the democraps being the ones to want to do nothing and the republicans taking action.

please see my first post here about this for the vote tally to clarify your erroneous intentions.

No, I didn't get anything backwards, you are simply confusing the issues. The Supreme Court decision was perfectly in line with the republican anti big government platform. This is a local issue. It is not the federal government taking away the land, and it is not federal governments job to interfere. Republicans are for less federal meddling and against more. Not sure where you neocons stand.

The fact that the decision upholds local authorities rights to do something bad is irrelevant. It is not the courts job to decide on this. Funny how the neocons blast the “activist judges” when they try to change something and then blast them when they don't.

And so Congress will take the necessary action to discourage this, people will vote out the corrupt local leaders, and everything will work out the way it is supposed to. Still the neocons will go on Faux News and damn the Supreme Court for doing exactly what they were supposed to do.

 

[LeeRyder]

well, i think the facts speak for themselves. The conservative judges voted against this, the republicans in congress voted to destroy it.

While, true, the republican motto is small govt... this has nothing to do with govt as your attempting to portray it. It was about a land grab and giving the govt more control over who gets to own land essentially.. based on the needs of the many (which is a liberal ideology) vs. the rights of all.

Take your medicine liberals... I find it incedible that everything points against what you are trying to say yet you.. because of a bias against republicans..attempt to still try to push this off as a conservative thing... get real.. the facts betray you.

 

[primacomputer]

well, i think the facts speak for themselves.

Yes the facts certainly do.
1.Laws in most states allow private property seizure for the benefit of another private party.
2.The governors and legislators of many of these states are conservative/republican/whatever non-liberal
So it's pretty clear that this is not a liberal thing. It's not a conservative thing either. It's a greed thing.

The conservative judges voted against this

That's because they were being activist judges. The compromised one set of ideals in order to enforce another.

the republicans in congress voted to destroy it.

Excellent, that's how the system is supposed to work. Lawmakers make the laws and courts enforce them. Courts shouldn't strike down laws made by elected representatives of the people simply because they don't like some of the results.

While, true, the republican motto is small govt... this has nothing to do with govt as your attempting to portray it.

Of course it does. You can't pick and choose when you want to apply your principals. If you believe in small government then you believe in small government. You don't throw it aside when some isolated case arises where discarding it could give you a quick solution to the problem. Or rather, you don't if you've been a Republican your whole life because you believe in the ideals. If your a fashion slave neocon who is told what to believe by a pair of shouting heads on the boob tube I guess you do.

It was about a land grab and giving the govt more control over who gets to own land essentially.. based on the needs of the many (which is a liberal ideology) vs. the rights of all.

It was a shameful act of greed and corruption that both Democrats and Republicans participated in. The “needs of the many” line is PR spin. There is no needs of the many involved here, only the greed of the corrupt few.

 

[theparrot]

Of course it does. You can't pick and choose when you want to apply your principals. If you believe in small government then you believe in small government. You don't throw it aside when some isolated case arises where discarding it could give you a quick solution to the problem. Or rather, you don't if you've been a Republican your whole life because you believe in the ideals. If your a fashion slave neocon who is told what to believe by a pair of shouting heads on the boob tube I guess you do.

In General the small government principals are guided by a core ideal of what the function of government is. Generaly it is to provide defense, and to enforce contracts. Those ideals are not against most proponent's of small governments ideals. The ruling distinctly mentioned economic justification for confiscation of property. That is the speaking of the big government fans.

Defense is a reason here, as most consider their home the core thing to defend. So defense against it being taken for economic reasons is fully in line with the principals. Most would agree that if China where to invade and try and take our homes the government should defend it, the same is true against unjust reasons of the local governments and states based on the same principals. Wars have been fought for far less.

Also, an implied contract when they put your name on the deed at court house, and gave you the others rights and responsibilities of ownership could be at risk here. So even proponents of small/limited government clearly have reasons based on their core principals to disagree with this ruling and find it to not be a states rights issue, but a defense and contract one.

 

[LeeRyder]

I think I'll just leave it at that.. prima seems intent on denying facts an the truth.. I feel that regardless of what is said, the republicans will be "evil" to his eyes.

sad that a person can't even "See the forest for all the trees."

 

[primacomputer]

In General the small government principals are guided by a core ideal of what the function of government is. Generaly it is to provide defense, and to enforce contracts. Those ideals are not against most proponent's of small governments ideals. The ruling distinctly mentioned economic justification for confiscation of property. That is the speaking of the big government fans.

Defense is a reason here, as most consider their home the core thing to defend. So defense against it being taken for economic reasons is fully in line with the principals. Most would agree that if China where to invade and try and take our homes the government should defend it, the same is true against unjust reasons of the local governments and states based on the same principals. Wars have been fought for far less.

Also, an implied contract when they put your name on the deed at court house, and gave you the others rights and responsibilities of ownership could be at risk here. So even proponents of small/limited government clearly have reasons based on their core principals to disagree with this ruling and find it to not be a states rights issue, but a defense and contract one.

I'm pretty sure the government is meant to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. So the land grabbers claim to be promoting general welfare and you claim to be providing for the common defence?

I can certainly understand how a person would feel this is an issue of defence. If someone tried to take my home I'd be pissed off. But comparing it to a foreign invasion is OTT. I believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution, as any good Republican should. A local government grabbing someone's house is not an issue of the common defence.

Still, I don't see where the problem is. The government is defending these people. Congress is putting the squeeze on the states effectively killing their local legislation. All working perfectly according to a plan laid out hundreds of year ago. All without requiring the supreme court to trample on states rights. It's such a great system when people devote more time to making it work than whining about how it doesn't.

I think I'll just leave it at that.. prima seems intent on denying facts an the truth.. I feel that regardless of what is said, the republicans will be "evil" to his eyes.

sad that a person can't even "See the forest for all the trees."

I don't deny facts. I am, however, more than happy to deny your interpretation of them as well as your personal “truths” if I don't agree with them.

Republicans aren't evil. The neocons who have hijacked the party are

 

[theparrot]

I'm pretty sure the government is meant to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. So the land grabbers claim to be promoting general welfare and you claim to be providing for the common defence?

I claimed defence and contract enforcement, both actually.


You claimed repeatedly that the stance being taken showed an inconsistency of principle. The constitution, if you yourself are able to get over your 7th grade civics class brainwashing, is itself a document of compromise. That is not good nor bad by itself, but quoting it does not show defense against any consistency or inconsistency or principle except for the Constitution party.


If you still feel this is the case, please tell me how a law or ruling restricting the government is growing the government? Is it not more so that case that local governments growing planning committees to use this newly blessed authority would really have been the case? How long till ever town would have a five year plan to grow the tax revenue. Since when is growing the tax revenue promoting the general welfare, or a legitamate function of government anyway? Which group has that as core principals? Does not the ruling allow and permit a large growth in government? Is this not the very thing the USA has claimed to be against on the world stage since the end of WW II? Which action actually grows the government? It is pretty clear that, even in terms of big vs small government principals you might not have thought this one through completely yet?

I can certainly understand how a person would feel this is an issue of defence. If someone tried to take my home I'd be pissed off. But comparing it to a foreign invasion is OTT. I believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution, as any good Republican should. A local government grabbing someone's house is not an issue of the common defence.

I don't think it is OTT. We were talking principals, and you said that principals are principals right? The can not be abandoned for expedience I believe is what you said earlier.

So logical projectitions of them to and from extremes are just what you said should be done. In this case only the names of the actors have been changed. It is a logical projection of the same concept, with the level of governments involved simple switched. After all if the local governments know better how to deal with the property, why is it that different to say that a foreign invading government might not feel the same?

I also think that is this type of taking became common enough you would see armed standoffs. If enough happened at the same time and organized opposition appeared, it would be a civil war. Really, is it that far removed, as opposed to your incorrect assertions that it was a contradiction in principals?

Still, I don't see where the problem is. The government is defending these people. Congress is putting the squeeze on the states effectively killing their local legislation. All working perfectly according to a plan laid out hundreds of year ago. All without requiring the supreme court to trample on states rights. It's such a great system when people devote more time to making it work than whining about how it doesn't.

We will see if it remains a problem. I don't like the band aid fix that was done personally. If you do not see what the problem is with the idea that a government officials at any level can say 'if we bulldoze these homes, and have something else built there we can get more tax revenue', and then being able to legally act on that is a problem, we will have to just agree to disagree.

 

[primacomputer]

I claimed defence and contract enforcement, both actually.

True, but you got one right, so I wanted to extenuate the positive.

You claimed repeatedly that the stance being taken showed an inconsistency of principle. The constitution, if you yourself are able to get over your 7th grade civics class brainwashing, is itself a document of compromise. That is not good nor bad by itself, but quoting it does not show defense against any consistency or inconsistency or principle except for the Constitution party.

We didn't have civics class when I was in seventh grade. Any brainwashing must be the results of the years I spent active in politics. I only quoted the constitution to remind people what the government is really there for.

If you still feel this is the case, please tell me how a law or ruling restricting the government is growing the government?

Any ruling that restricts the power of the states conibutes to big government, by definition. This is what big government is, the transfer of power from the state (small) to federal (big). Any such ruling would also set a dangerous legal precedent. If the courts can simply decide that states don't have any say in thing then we no longer have the USA, we have a USSA.

Is it not more so that case that local governments growing planning committees to use this newly blessed authority would really have been the case? How long till ever town would have a five year plan to grow the tax revenue.

You can't turn an argument into anti big government simply by throwing the word grow into it. And I think the answer to the second part is -20 years, because I distinctly remember around that time when the government of California decided they wanted 1.5% or so on every twinkie I ate.

Since when is growing the tax revenue promoting the general welfare, or a legitamate function of government anyway?

You'd have to read George HW Bushes lips for the answer to that one. Sometimes when you get far enough in debt you've got to do a capitol call or go bust,

Which group has that as core principals? Does not the ruling allow and permit a large growth in government? Is this not the very thing the USA has claimed to be against on the world stage since the end of WW II? Which action actually grows the government? It is pretty clear that, even in terms of big vs small government principals you might not have thought this one through completely yet?

Correct, I have never thought in the terms of a town government being big government, and I'm certain I never will. I am not willing to accept “big” big government in order to stop “big” small government.

I don't think it is OTT. We were talking principals, and you said that principals are principals right? The can not be abandoned for expedience I believe is what you said earlier.

So logical projectitions of them to and from extremes are just what you said should be done.

I said nothing about logical projections. If you want logical projections then the logical projection of what you are saying that that a foreign invasion is the same as your neighbour stealing your hedge trimmer. No. I don't think logical projections work here.

In this case only the names of the actors have been changed.

It is a logical projection of the same concept, with the level of governments involved simple switched. After all if the local governments know better how to deal with the property, why is it that different to say that a foreign invading government might not feel the same?

It's that constitution thing again. The only thing it says about a foreign invasion is that the president can call up the armed forces to defend against it. And the only thing it says about property is that it can not be taken without due process of law. Doesn't mater whether the government of Grand Fenwick knows better how to deal with it. If they don't take it through due process of law it's not allowed.

I also think that is this type of taking became common enough you would see armed standoffs. If enough happened at the same time and organized opposition appeared, it would be a civil war. Really, is it that far removed, as opposed to your incorrect assertions that it was a contradiction in principals?

I never said that this kind of talk was a contradiction of principals, only that wanting the Supreme Court to interfere in internal state affairs was. A civil war? Bah! These people who's homes are being taken away can't even organize a movement to vote out their corrupt local officials. How are they going to start any serious trouble?

We will see if it remains a problem. I don't like the band aid fix that was done personally. If you do not see what the problem is with the idea that a government officials at any level can say 'if we bulldoze these homes, and have something else built there we can get more tax revenue', and then being able to legally act on that is a problem, we will have to just agree to disagree.

Of course I see the problem with it. I simply prefer that it is dealt with within the framework of the law rather than further erode the power of the states. We both agree it's bad, we only disagree on how to deal with it.

 

[theparrot]

True, but you got one right, so I wanted to extenuate the positive.

So you deny the abilty to consider this a contract with the government, and feel that the filling of deeds and fees charged for them are worthless as a basis of contract?

Any ruling that restricts the power of the states conibutes to big government, by definition. This is what big government is, the transfer of power from the state (small) to federal (big). Any such ruling would also set a dangerous legal precedent. If the courts can simply decide that states don't have any say in thing then we no longer have the USA, we have a USSA.

Ah, we have a different dictionary I see. While it is true in general that home rule is in general in alignment with the ideals of small governement, the larger principal is reduction in the scope of governement in the aggregate. If you define it to be the way you do, of course then you will always be right, by your own definations. Problem is they are not the same definations many others use. I define it by the agregate sum of all goverment not just one layer. I also do not see how a restriction on government at all levels leads to big government.

You can't turn an argument into anti big government simply by throwing the word grow into it. And I think the answer to the second part is -20 years, because I distinctly remember around that time when the government of California decided they wanted 1.5% or so on every twinkie I ate.

Ok, so I can't use economic or standard english definitions of the terms. It is true if we use your definations then, by defination you must be right. Of course you have then said nothing since once you twist the definations like that the words no longer have meaning.

California has long been joked about as the Peoples Republic of.... still does not quite get us to every town trying to do central planning just yet.

You'd have to read George HW Bushes lips for the answer to that one. Sometimes when you get far enough in debt you've got to do a capitol call or go bust,

no idea where this is coming from.... time for me to get out of left field not sure how I got here.

Correct, I have never thought in the terms of a town government being big government, and I'm certain I never will. I am not willing to accept “big” big government in order to stop “big” small government.

Again, how does a restriction on all levels of governemtn against takings from private property lead to any level/layer of government getting bigger?

I guess I need your dictionary to understand this?

I said nothing about logical projections. If you want logical projections then the logical projection of what you are saying that that a foreign invasion is the same as your neighbour stealing your hedge trimmer. No. I don't think logical projections work here.

You did, in other terms, you words

Of course it does. You can't pick and choose when you want to apply your principals.

And yes, I feel that action as well merits government protection. Do you think your neighbour should be allowed to steal your hedge trimmer with impunity? Seems the logical projects work quite well here.

It's that constitution thing again. The only thing it says about a foreign invasion is that the president can call up the armed forces to defend against it. And the only thing it says about property is that it can not be taken without due process of law. Doesn't mater whether the government of Grand Fenwick knows better how to deal with it. If they don't take it through due process of law it's not allowed.

We were talking principals here.... not con law.

I never said that this kind of talk was a contradiction of principals, only that wanting the Supreme Court to interfere in internal state affairs was. A civil war? Bah! These people who's homes are being taken away can't even organize a movement to vote out their corrupt local officials. How are they going to start any serious trouble?

You didn't? whose quote was that above then, about it being just that?

Regardless of those people, the issue of property rights vs. state rights vs. people (slaves and slave holders) was the core issue of our civial war was it not? Have you also not seen the reports of the armed battles of this issue in Africa and china? Bah, like a sheep all you want, reality says otherwise.

Of course I see the problem with it. I simply prefer that it is dealt with within the framework of the law rather than further erode the power of the states. We both agree it's bad, we only disagree on how to deal with it.

Ah, but I have not even said how I would deal with it. I have only been showing how your claim that the people who say they are for smaller government but against this rulling are not in fact contradiction themselves in principals.