That would be communists and socialists. While liberals CAN be communist or socialist, the core of liberal ideology is not supporting such ideals.
I was really being serious. o_O Last time I checked liberals care almost nothing for private property. It's so bad that even they are freaking out about this.
Granted and apologize. Almost all of the liberals I argue with are quite hardcore, so maybe they lean more to socialism than liberalism. (It's a fine line, but if it's there, it's there.)Originally Posted by Behold the Void
I still maintain that we don't really understand the details of this case, and I don't think the ruling is as bad as everyone seems to think. What would happen if the court had ruled the other way? What if the court said that governments can never appropriate any land for any reason?
Then we'd have a free and just society where property rights are valued as they should be.
[q=Warren G]They took my rings, they took my Rolex,
I looked at my brother and said
Damn, what's next?[/q]
I'm sure there are severe restrictions on this kind of ruling as eestlinc has alluded to, but I still think this is all rather ridiculous.
They couldn't possibly have made that ruling for this case, since it was specifically about the government seizing property for private economic development. They'd still have the right to seize land for necessary government use, like public transportation projects and the like. I don't think government should lose that right, but I agree with TK that this ruling goes too far.
here's a blog post from Matthew Yglesias on this topic, basically saying what I felt but may not have said as well.
Yglesias makes some valid points, but it's not the issue to me that people aren't getting just compensation for eminent domain seizures that bothers me about this (actually, I have no idea whether that's the case or not), it's the fact that they constitute a massive pain in the arse to the people who are affected by them. People shouldn't have to relocate just because some theater company wants to build a multiplex where their neigbourhood used to stand. It's one step closer to corporate government, basically.
but if governments didn't tear down houses to build highways then we'd never have met Ford Prefect.
I agree that forcing people to sell their homes so a mall can be built is crappy, but I really don't think this ruling is going to result in a flood of such actions. The ruling just says it isn't unconstitutional to do this, it doesn't say every proposed use is preapproved.
That's not what really bothers me, either. People wouldn't allow that. What I am arguing is that the ruling is unconstitutional, or rather, unjust. Hell, eminent domain is bordering on unconstitutional to me (don't mention the Fifth Amendment; just as the Eighteenth Amendment was (and is) unconstitutional, so is the clause justifying property seizure). This only furthers a flawed aspect of our government.
but amendments cannot be unconstitutional. by definition they are part of the constitution.
they can be ruled unconstitutional though .Lots of amendments have been in american history keep that in mind.
I just wanted to add that in France, the Government/city locals can kick you out of your property if there's a project that will benefit most people. Mostly, they use it to build roads and general infrastructure (bridges, power lines, train tracks when we were still making them, hospitals...). Of course, you're compensated, but it's usually not enough since it doesn't take into account the moral distress, etc...
And as Eest said, it's silly to call Constitutional amendments unconstitutional, same goes with the flag amendment if it ever gets ratified. They can't be ruled unconstitutional. They can be repealed, which is in fact an amendment aswell as far as the procedure goes. The only time it happened was, I think the21st18th(not sure about the number), which was the one banning the sale of alcohol that got repealed.
Edit: 18th was the one prohibiting the sale of alcohol, 21st is the one that repealed it.
Last edited by Endless; 06-25-2005 at 08:18 AM.
And then there is Death
*burns flag and holds a lighter int he air adn starts waving it*ok lol you know im jsut joking aorund when i say that but seriously man this really blows lol.WE have a incompetent president who ise all talk but no show.The flag burning amendment hasn't passed yet. And to give credit where credit is due, it was actually the conservatives who voted against this horrid decision.
Liberals care about private property. When it belongs to poor people. We just don't give a toss about the stuff people like Ken Lay "own" because they've smurfing stolen half of it anyway.
Uh, name them?they can be ruled unconstitutional though .Lots of amendments have been in american history keep that in mind.
Posting Permissions
