| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Do you agree with the US Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. New London |
| Yes, it is acceptable for government to give one person's property to another person. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No, a government's taking of property from one person to give to another person ought to be illegal. |
|
100% |
[ 11 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
| Kelo vs. City of New London |
|
Before I rant, I'll give a bit of background information.
In case any of you don't know, Eminent Domain is the process whereby the government takes private property so it can be put to public use.
The city of New London in efforts to accomodate Phizer corp. in their bid build a research facility in their town, attempted to use eminent domain to take property from 15 petitioners. Their exact property was located in space they planned to use for parking for the facility, however it was part of a larger plan.
Susette Kelo (lead petitioner), was born in her house in 1918, and lived there her whole life. Her husband has lived there ever since they married 60 year ago. Her son lives next door in the house they gave him as a wedding gift. Their homes were all in good condition.
The U.S. Supreme Court said that is legal for the government to take property from person A and give it to person B for purely economic reasons by using eminent domain.
I have a serious problem with this decision. It lowers to the standard for eminent domain so low that now a government can take property for basically any reason, and then give it to someone else. The court in essence ruled that if Wal-Mart wants to build a store across the street from my house, the city can take my house and give it to Wal-Mart so that they can build a parking lot there.
This is not right, and it goes against one of the very basic freedoms being American. Now, I have to be concerned that someone who can put my property to a better economic use can have the government take it if they know the right politicians. In fact they don't have to put it to a better economic use, they need only have politicians say they will.
Over the past couple of years people have been talking about Constitutional Amendments. I think we need to amend our constitution to clarify our rights to keep or property. I doubt I am the only one who feels this way. It's not difficult logic. Taking property from you for the sole purpose of giving it to me ought to be illegal, shouldn't it?
CNN article making announce
The text of the opinion
Vultures already discussing taking people's property
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Last edited by Darrius Cole on Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:37 pm |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
Wow, I live just across the river from New London and I haven't heard of this...
I completely agree with you. Taking people's homes for that is just ridiculous.
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:45 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
I think that Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion sums it up quite nicely. This ruling is absurd.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:39 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
Rulings like this get made and *I* get glared at when I say that I don't believe America is 'free' any longer?
It's not a put down... it's an opinion that you, the people, better do something before they, the 'we've lost sight of who the people are', do anything really dumb.
quote:
From dictionary.com
2 entries found for plutocracy.
plu·toc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu·toc·ra·cies
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
Please, I beg of someone - anyone - prove me wrong. Give me something concrete that I can hold up as a shining beacon and say 'The leadership of the most powerful nation on earth is not influenced by the wealthiest of its citizens'. Please show me a recent president that came from the lower or middle class. Please.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Heh, Clinton and Reagan both had humble beginnings. If you're worried about the rich ruling the U.S., then it's not the Presidency you should be examining. It's the Senate.
This ruling however is not a question of rich vs poor. It's a question of individual freedom vs the government's power. In my opinion, the Constitution barely allows Eminent Domain. This is crossing the line and going straight into an abuse of power.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:47 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
Another fine example of why sweeping judicial reform is needed. NOW.
Like giving Congress the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings with a majority vote. They can override the President, yet they, the elected representatives of the people, have no power whatsoever when it comes to the Supreme Court. Everyone bellyaches about needing checks and balances everywhere but the courts, and it's ridiculous to see the way these thieves in black robes operate every day, from lower court judges in Everytown USA tossing out ballot initiatives that the people have voted on, to the Supremes looking to foreign law, and to now taking people's land out from under them. Its a disgrace, the courts were never meant to have this type of power over the citizenry. *spits!*
Ive said it before and I'll say it again- The courts do not think they serve this country, they think they rule it.
And sadly enough, they do. Theres not a whole hell of a lot we can do about it until people turn off the damn football game and start holding people's feet to the fire over this judicial tyranny, and make no mistake, thats exactly what this is. And yet another example of why the fights over judicial nominees is so bitter and vitriolic.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 7:15 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I am still upset over this and have a lot I want to say; this will be rather long.
Xen, no one is going to prove you wrong...because you're right. We do live in a Plutocracy as it is defined in your last post. In fact, that is origin of the country. We have been trying to change over the past century and a half, but we're not there yet.
All governments are Plutocracies. Even if they don't begin that way, they end up that way, because that is the nature of reality. I think the difference in the US is that the common people constantly struggle with the government. Through the constant struggle the country can correct flaws and abuses, and burn off energy with subtle political events, like elections and pickets lines instead of with major politcal events like revolutions. It's a rather ingenious difference I might add.
It's a question of individual freedom vs. government's power in principal. But in practice that's the same as rich vs. poor for the most part. There are a few cases where the government is used to oppress the rich but they are few and far in between. This particular misuse of eminent domain will have the end result of being entirely about rich vs. poor. No one is going to attempt to use eminent domain to occupy a neighbood of 150 homes valued at 1 million dollars each. They're going to "force the sale of" neighborhoods of 250 homes valued at 50 thousand dollars each. Nonetheless, in either case the framers of the Constitution foresaw this possibility and put a line in the Constitution outlawing the forced taking of property unless the public will use that property.
I think giving the Congress the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings is a bit too much. That would remove all checks on the Congress and make life impossible for anyone with a minority position. It would also subject too many laws to the current political climate. And it would also make the President whose party controls Congress virtually a monarch.
As society gets more and more laws on the books, it necessarily depends more and more on people with in-depth knowledge of ALL the laws. In other words the more complicated we make law the more power we give judges and lawyers. Given the trend perhaps in would be a good idea to give appointed judges specified terms without the possibility of re-appointment.
There appears to be some new way of thinking that defies all logic. We are having judges make decision on things for which there is no specific law because they are so basic that they should go without saying.
quote:
From The Constitution of The United States of America
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 offence 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.
So, because it says that the government can't take property for public use unless it pays a proper amount for it, we are to assume that it CAN take property for private use. Did they really need to include a line that says,
"The Government shall not take property from one person for the purpose of giving it to another person."
Under the old way of thinking they didn't need this. Under the new way of thinking we need to say this. Because this new way of thinking starts with completely different assumptions about reality.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:46 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
And there's the crux of the problem. The Constitution was written to provide the structure of government and to place limitations on the government's power over the people. If it's not in the Constitution, then the government was to have no providence over it. The government was never granted the power to take land from private citizen A and give it to private citizen B. Government was never granted any power to favor one citizen over another. Especially when it comes to the private sector.
With the way the Constitution is interpreted today, if the right isn't explicitly granted to the citizen, then government can tample all over the private citizen. Heck, not even that is sacrosanct. Look at that stupid campaign finance reform law. Let's trample all over people's freedom to speak on politics and create a bunch of rogue, partisan, political groups that aren't answerable to anyone and act like a bunch of screaming fanatics. If I could hit John McCain with a trout, I would. [sarcasm] Yeah Johnny, you sure did clean up politics, didn't ya? [/sarcasm] 
Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Edit: Spelling, etc.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=
Last edited by Val on Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:19 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
So, if everyone thinks it's wrong... what are people going to do about it?
Not that a matter like this got any sort of top billing on national news. It was nowhere near as important as Tom Cruise arguing with Matt Lauer, after all.
I think if more people knew then something might get done about it. Any person who has worked hard to own a house would probably get their back up over the idea that if a business gets permission from a local government it can walk up to you, say 'your house is worth 100,000 dollars. Here it is. Now, get out.' and have the law on its side.
It reminds me of a real estate commercial that is currently running (at least in Canada). A family is sitting around a kitchen table eating breakfast when another family comes in and starts looking around. Shocked into inactivity the owners just sort of look for a second until the invaders say "It's perfect. We'll take it.". They then procede to tell their kids to go pick their rooms as the owners keep re-iterating the house isn't for sale.
That's the commercial that popped into my mind the moment I read the first post. The commercial is presented as a situation too outrageous and ridiculous to ever happen... a hyperbolic display, like most commercials. Yet, here we are...
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:35 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Sadly, for most people, they'll do nothing. Until it's too late.
Most people aren't like me and have their representative's office phone numbers pinned up next to my phone. Ah, how they dread seeing my number on the caller ID at those offices. I've already added this to my list of things to call them about.
Val's current list of things to annoy my government about:
This stupid Supreme Court ruling
Parking trucks hauling nuclear waste in Spanish Fork canyon and leaving them there unguarded over the weekend. Can we say dirty bomb on wheels? (You think Home Land Security might be interested in this? Our local branch of the EPA sure didn't care.)
So, what are you guys doing about the development of independant sources of energy? Yeah, I asked about that a month ago. I wanted to check up on your lack of progress.
So, Hatch, when are you Republicans going to grow a freaking spine and squash the filibuster on judicial nominees? This is getting irritating.
Then there's the stuff I need to harass the governor's office about.
Being a citizen is busy work, no wonder most people don't do it.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:04 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I still think the problem is that people in high places just aren't being reasonable. We are steadily taking more and more basic realities of life and ignoring them. There is nothing in the law as it is written that says that the government could do this. Just think about it. I want to force one person to give me property against his will so that I can give it to another person. Common sense will tell you that isn't right, and should be illegal. That is the very definition of robbery.
But that isn't the only issue we are doing like this. More and more we see people going out of their way to complicate the basics of life. Most often when someone is complicating an issue, it's because the truth is not what they want it to be and they need to make it cloudy so that the common people won't see their BS opinion for what it is, BS.
The Constitution as it is written addresses the problem, but if the courts are willing to say, "water is dry" you can't pass a law to stop them from doing that. They simply are not acknowledging that you mean what you say. They are seeing life from a point of view so foreign that they actually are speaking a different language. We are so busy trying to see things from every possible angle that we are losing common sense. Certain things are so simple that they need no further explanation, they just are what they are. We are rapidly losing the ability to see that.
Since the reality is that the Supreme Court did rule that a government can take property from person A and give it to person B, we need a Constitutional amendment to specifically say that no government can do this.
P.S. What should happen is the city governments in the Justices' hometowns should take their homes and give them to slum lords who will use them as half-way houses and site "Kelo vs. New London" for authority.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:48 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I don't like the idea of justices having to face re-election. A judge should have no pressure affecting any decision he makes. I don't want judges taking the current political winds into account when they make a rulings. The law is what the law is. They should be free to call it like they see it.
Every so often the masses need to be saved from their own fear. People get afraid and trample their own rights, thinking that they are trampling the rights of others. The courts are intended to protect the people from the government. If the justices are elected and re-elected like all other politicians, they become the government, subject to all the prevailing winds.
The often shifting winds of politics are always blowing bad ideas current events. When I talk to people on serious matters like this, I often ask them to consider what will happen if their point of view is adopted by everyone. They often don't, saying that it is ridiculous to think that such ideas will be adopted by the masses. But often such bad ideas are adopted by the masses. Often times in a moment of fear people legislate such bad ideas into law and are unable to correct the damage done because of their error. SOMEONE HAS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE RESULT WILL BE IF THESE IDEAS ARE CARRIED OUT TO COMPLETION AND THEN IF THEY ARE PROLIFERATED TO THE EXTREME. The judges are supposed to fulfill that role. They are supposed to be wiser than the average person. But no matter how wise, no one can do that if they can be voted out on a whim of the people.
They also can't do that if they're naive, crazy, senile or just plain stupid. I am inclined go for age limits, both minimums and maximums, although I am more skeptical of maximums. Some people will be senile at 80 and some people will never be senile no matter their age. I have trouble accepting the idea of forcing someone into retirement when they are in perfect health. How would we get an honest outside evaluation of a justice's mental health without making the justice a political pawn? Besides I am beginning to think that our judicial problems are not cause because the judges are senile but rather because they are just plain stupid.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:03 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
80? Why 80?
We (the world) need younger people in government, period. The world has changed a lot in the past 30 years but the people ruling it haven't. There needs to be multiple politicians who are in their mid 30s.
With age comes wisdom and you want wise people to run things... blah, blah, blah. Wisdom is based on education, knowledge, and good old common sense. Age doesn't have a lot to do with it. There are so many more people on RPGDot I'd like to see in politics than any of the current field I read about on CNN.
I refuse to see how senators who remember the days of segregation with the nostalgia of childhood and still occassionally voice their opinion on why it's a bad idea for the women to be out of the kitchen are properly equipped to handle a world where every country is as close as your next door neighbor.
To bad mainly old people vote. Who do they vote for? People who emphathize with them... old people.
Forget 'rock the vote'. I don't want to see a higher turn out among the 'sleep with everything that moves and drink until I drop' uninformed masses who are only voting because it's 'cool'. I want to see adults vote, not children (the 26 year old child is a growing phenomenon.).
Again, it's not a tear against America. THe entire world needs more 35 year old middle class leaders. America is the most powerful, though, so any trend in leadership needs to start there and spread throughout the rest of the democracies.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:59 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
STOP THE PRESSES AND READ THIS!  
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
