Author Topic: Supreme Court Rules Cities Can Seize Your Home For Walmart (Read 4313 times)

oboe · « **Reply #30 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:29:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
For over 100 years now, Americans have accepted the Marxist/Utilitarian principle that the state should take your private property and redistribute it "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need".

That is quite a stretch, Seagoon. The first income tax was enacted in 1862, to help finance the cost of the Civil War. It was a graduated scale flat tax, with incomes under $10,000 paying 3%, those greater than $10,000 paid a higher rate.

Do you have evidence that collected taxes were being redistributed to the poor that long ago? You are basically calling Abraham Lincoln a communist. Is that your intent?

It's my understanding the significant social spending started with FDR, and expanded in the 1960s with Johnson's "Great Society" programs. Income taxes came and went several times before then, usually to raise revenue to fight wars.

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #31 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:33:45 PM »

This is very scary indeed.. Some really good post here and I'd have to agree with every point given except maybe the liberal/conservative blame that was attempted.. I think wolfe had the best post about its now the people against the government.. I believe the sooner we as americans stop letting the media divide us all into 2 or more catagories the sooner we might take back our country. We really are in this all together..

oboe · « **Reply #32 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:34:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

Isnt this what the conserves want? Power away from the SC and back to the states?

Its what Reagan conservatives wanted. The Bush adminstration favors curtailment of individual rights and freedoms and a large, very powerful and far-reaching federal government. Which is why I don't think we can correctly call Bush a conservative.

EDIT: Actually I should be more specific and say a powerful and far-reaching executive branch.

Karnak · « **Reply #33 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:38:25 PM »

I am progressivly more pissed about this ruling. The SCOTUS had the chance to stop and even reverse earlier SCOTUS rullings dating back to the 1880s, but they failed. They went explicitly with the prior rulings by earlier SCOTUS' that exited in a very different corporate culture.

It is true that the SCUTUS ruled in line with existing law and SCOTUS rulings, but it is also true that they ruled WRONG

Here is a thread on another site with some informative links about this subject:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/28609695/m/272008104731/p/1

T0J0 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:40:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
sometimes the people win , down here wally mart wanted to build another store on a site that would destroy some wetlands, the people protested, the govt backed down and denied the permits.

John What county is that in?!

TJ

TheDudeDVant · « **Reply #35 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:41:46 PM »

I thought the SC interpreted the law?? Could they have changed it and still been within their legal jurisdiction?

SOB · « **Reply #36 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:44:41 PM »

Yeah, it certainly does stink, and now that it's passed through the Supreme Court, it's time for Congress to get off their tulips and change the law or modify the constitution to make the clear distinction between public need and private interest. That is, if they can tear themselves away from protecting the flag. This has already happened before the case, in the city right next to mine...Keizer. The city council voted to condemn a section of property owned by a local greenhouse to make room for a commercial development. Pretty pathetic...and just goes to show that even your local government is important, and you need to pay attention to who is being voted in.

john9001 · « **Reply #37 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:50:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by T0J0
John What county is that in?!

TJ

pinellas, it was out on gandy, across from the dog track.

i'm in st pete, where you live?

Karnak · « **Reply #38 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:53:13 PM »

One thing that strikes me about this is that both here and on Arstechnica, the other forum I frequent, everybody, Liberals and Conservatives alike, think this is complete BS, even if they see how the ruling was reached.

This is something that clearly the vast majority of Americans think is wrong. That seizing private property for corporate use is a perversion of what the US is supposed to be.

If we are, Liberals and Conservatives, united on this you'd think that the Congress would be interested in passing a law in our favor, But why do I doubt this to be the case?

SOB · « **Reply #39 on:** June 23, 2005, 01:58:47 PM »

Because you have an IQ over 50 and have seen congress in action.

ASTAC · « **Reply #40 on:** June 23, 2005, 02:11:38 PM »

This is all a small part of the "reddening" of America.

Welcome to RED AMERICA Comrade!

Karnak · « **Reply #41 on:** June 23, 2005, 02:15:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ASTAC
This is all a small part of the "reddening" of America.

Welcome to RED AMERICA Comrade!

It has nothing to do with that.

It is a ruling based on prior ruling from the 1880s and 1950s.

It is wrong, but it is not new.

lazs2 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 23, 2005, 02:18:34 PM »

seagoon has it..

A wall mart can generate 5 million in tax revenue for a city and state.

Liberal loafer wearing taxi riders view any personal property ownership as the height of evil and feel that the greatest good for mother earth is to cram people into cities after confiscating their property.

living out away from the horde makes people think they are too free independent and turns em into red voters instead of blue ones. They drive their own cars and live in big wasteful homes.

lazs

Karnak · « **Reply #43 on:** June 23, 2005, 02:35:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
seagoon has it..

A wall mart can generate 5 million in tax revenue for a city and state.

Liberal loafer wearing taxi riders view any personal property ownership as the height of evil and feel that the greatest good for mother earth is to cram people into cities after confiscating their property.

living out away from the horde makes people think they are too free independent and turns em into red voters instead of blue ones. They drive their own cars and live in big wasteful homes.

lazs

Yeah, sure Lazs. That is why universally Liberals and Conservatives both think this is wrong, because Liberals are so much for it...

Wait....

That is a bunch of simple minded propaganda drivel meant to inflame emotions and create an "us vs them" flame war that you posted.

Maybe you hadn't noticed how your statement is diametically oposite of what people are posting.

But you just had to take your stereotype cheapshot at the right wing's boogie man didn't you.

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** June 23, 2005, 02:43:21 PM »

would you say that the left was more or less a supporter of private property rights than the right?

would you say that the urban non property owning parts of the country were more or less likely to vote for the left?

Would you say that looking at a map of the nation and how it voted for the two presidental candidates that there was a real division between urban and rural voting... a real "us vs them" or am I just making it up?

lazs