Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I disagree with the result in the recent eminent domain case, but didn't the decision state that if states didn't like the result, they were free to legislate around it? There's talk of changing the laws in Texas to prevent a similar situation.

Damn liberal federalist judges.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


eta: Personally I think it's a god-awful decision and one of those instances where I look at what the USSC has done and think "that's what our Constitution means?"

Wow! There's actually hope.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Federalism shouldn't be anyone's beef in analyzing Kelo:


. . .

I personally don't think that the proposed condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but abandonment of federalism couldn't possibly be argued in this decision.

2. Is someone arguing that it is? It's the paradigm of a "states' rights" case--the states are being freed under the federal constitution to regulate as they see fit.

[sgtclub]

• WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy logged a solid 3.8 percent growth rate in the first quarter of 2005, a performance that was better than previously thought and a fresh sign the expansion is on firm footing.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050629/D8B19LJ80.html

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wow! There's actually hope.

Why would you be surprised? I like the idea of people being able to carry on their lives without the gov't telling them what to do -- who they can marry, who they can sleep with, where they can live. I support environmental legislation, probably far more aggressively than you, but only because of the externalities involved when people get to do anything they want with land. (And I notice that those people who advocate the idea that your land is your kingdom would lose their minds if a strip joint opened in their neighborhood, or next door to their kids' private schools.)

Is it because of my radical, near-communist view on taxes -- that the gov't must be willing to fund what it wants to buy?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wow! There's actually hope.

Just because I think W is a disgraceful joke of a president doesn't make me liberal. I tended to vote GOP until I noticed it was being taken over by the loonies.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Just because I think W is a disgraceful joke of a president doesn't make me liberal. I tended to vote GOP until I noticed it was being taken over by the loonies.

Medical marijuana makes baby Jebus cry.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Why would you be surprised? I like the idea of people being able to carry on their lives without the gov't telling them what to do -- who they can marry, who they can sleep with, where they can live. I support environmental legislation, probably far more aggressively than you, but only because of the externalities involved when people get to do anything they want with land. (And I notice that those people who advocate the idea that your land is your kingdom would lose their minds if a strip joint opened in their neighborhood, or next door to their kids' private schools.)

Is it because of my radical, near-communist view on taxes -- that the gov't must be willing to fund what it wants to buy?

I would think that you would take the view that as long as the owners are justly compensated, the government should have the right to take the property, because we as a society all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the services government provides and those services need to be paid for.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Federalism shouldn't be anyone's beef in analyzing Kelo:

"For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power." p 12-13.

"To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development." p 13.

“'When the legislature’s purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our casesmake clear that empirical debates over the wisdom oftakings—no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation—are not to be carried out in the federal courts.'” Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242.20" p. 17

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose 'public use' requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domainstatutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised." p. 19

"This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a 'public use' within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution." p. 19

I personally don't think that the proposed condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but abandonment of federalism couldn't possibly be argued in this decision.

I agree with that, although I think you thought I had a federalism beef. I knew Connecticut was a state of corrupt tyrants (in fact I once worked for one of the recently deposed tyrants there) and as such I made a decision years ago to move away and take my tax dollars with me. Connecticut's tyrannical taking only affirm my prior decision.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy logged a solid 3.8 percent growth rate in the first quarter of 2005, a performance that was better than previously thought and a fresh sign the expansion is on firm footing.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050629/D8B19LJ80.html

Making the case more compelling (and imperative) to sunset the sunset provisions of the presently effective tax cuts.

LET US KEEP OUR HARD EARNED MONEY, TYRANTS!!!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
(And I notice that those people who advocate the idea that your land is your kingdom would lose their minds if a strip joint opened in their neighborhood, or next door to their kids' private schools.)

Dissent. It would make daily journeys more efficient. In an earlier period of my life, the post-college, pre-adult 20s phase, when I rented apartments without laundry facilities, I chose my laundramat based on its (next door) proximity to the stripper bars. I long for a return for those simpler days.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

Is it because of my radical, near-communist view on taxes -- that the gov't must be willing to fund what it wants to buy?

Yes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Just because I think W is a disgraceful joke of a president doesn't make me liberal. I tended to vote GOP until I noticed it was being taken over by the loonies.

Moral relativist. You either accept a plank or you're against both.

I'll vote GOP again someday. Soon as they get sane.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Just because I think W is a disgraceful joke of a president doesn't make me liberal. I tended to vote GOP until I noticed it was being taken over by the loonies.

Bon voyage! Say allo to Jerry Lewis for me.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would think that you would take the view that as long as the owners are justly compensated, the government should have the right to take the property, because we as a society all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the services government provides and those services need to be paid for.

rotflmao. merci!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Moral relativist. You either accept a plank or you're against both.
.

Puh-leeeze! Putting aside the rhetoric (which both parties engage in, eg. Dean, Carville and Begala are the functional equivalents of Rove), dividing the myraid of issues into an either/or (Dem or Rep) is impossible. Unless you are brain-dead doctinairian.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would think that you would take the view that as long as the owners are justly compensated, the government should have the right to take the property, because we as a society all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the services government provides and those services need to be paid for.

I think that I'm jaded on the subject, since the goddamned development/contractors lobby here in Texas have made it so homeowners associations can circumvent homestead laws and take people's houses away. The foreclosure process is a lot quicker if you don't pay your HOA fees than if you don't pay your taxes. Tex. Prop. Code 204 and Inwood North vs. Harris, 736 SW2d 632 (Tex.1987)