OT: Land Use Decisions (was Re: Request to remove Information)

From: Patrick Wiseman (pwiseman_at_gmail.com)
Date: 11/19/05

  • Next message: Rodney D. Myers: "stable/sarge missinglibrary dependancies" 
    Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:11:38 -0500
To: Debian User Lists <debian-user@lists.debian.org>

    On 11/19/05, Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> wrote:
    >
    > Patrick Wiseman wrote:
    > > This thread is just way out of hand[1], but if you're speaking of the US
    > > Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently
    > > bought the MSM's spin on it.
    >
    > Nope, tend to ignore MSM for the rubbish it is.

    OK, then you've bought the right-wing ranters' version of what the Kelo
    decision said.
    > All the Court did in that case was

    > > reaffirm at least 50 (and arguably 200) years' worth of constitutional
    > > law: decisions about land use should be made _locally_ and not be
    > > second-guessed by the 9 probably-out-of-touch folks who happen to sit on
    > > the US Supreme Court.
    >
    > That's the excuse given which doesn't hold water because even local law
    > officals are beholden to the Constitution. I'm sorry but the phrase "nor
    > shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
    > is
    > hard to mangle into "Taking property from one private individual and
    > giving it
    > to another individual because they would generate more tax revenue" based
    > on
    > the notion of "decisions about land use should be made locally".

    Have you read the Kelo decision? Apparently not. The Court made it
    abundantly clear that taking property from one private owner and giving it
    to another would violate the "public use" limitation (if that's what it is -
    textual analysis could go either way) of the Takings Clause, and that that
    is NOT what happened in New London. And it's not. The "taking" was part of a
    comprehensive land-use development.

    > Whether what happened in New London was bad
    > > _policy_ (something I'll not argue) it violated no constitutional>
    > _principle_.
    >
    > Bull. Protections against private property are very much the core of
    > constitutional principle and that was grossly violated.

    Bull back at you, if that's the level on which you wish to conduct the
    discussion. The constitution _explicitly_ contemplates that private property
    _may_ be taken for public use upon payment of just compensation (i.e. fair
    market value). Who should make the decision whether exercise of the eminent
    domain power is appropriate?

    > I thought libertarians - and I had the impression you, Mr.
    > > Lamb, consider yourself one - preferred local to national decision
    > > making.
    >
    > I do. But I do not believe "local decision making" trumps one's right to
    > personal property. Why? Because that's as local as you can get. It's is
    > *my* land and *I* decide whether to sell it or not. The local "planning
    > board" is one step removed from the most local authority of that land, the
    > owner.
    >

    So the owner can simply deny government's right to exercise the power of
    eminent domain? The constitution (the US one that is, sorry to be parochial
    on this international list) specifically provides otherwise. You're no
    libertarian; you're an anarchist! (So be it - I'm not riding a horse here,
    just clarifying constitutional doctrine, and the US Constitution is not an
    anarchist document.)

    Patrick 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Rodney D. Myers: "stable/sarge missinglibrary dependancies"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Gunned Down At Costco...
      ... There is a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. ... Publicly accessible buildings is not the same as public buildings. ... it probably wouldn't be Bryan's private property. ... "Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart. ...
      (rec.sport.football.college)
    • Re: OT: Looking for case about taiinted evidence police tresspassing to get evidence... Was: House
      ... In this case it was more of the police hiding on private property ... What makes you think that police hiding on your property is against ... There is NO right to privacy specifically mentioned in the Constitution. ... I often see a mail delivery truck parked in a driveway. ...
      (alt.home.repair)
    • Re: A point to ponder
      ... And having assumed the office in such circumstances, Congress having ... taxes by increasing the taxes on those who actually earn a living ... with the ide of "nor shall private property be taken for public use, ... Where in the Constitution does Obama or Congress fiund the authority ...
      (talk.politics.guns)
    • Re: A point to ponder
      ... sending of rebate checks to those who haven't paid any taxes by ... "nor shall private property be taken for public use, ... Constitution does Obama or Congress fiund the authority for this? ...
      (talk.politics.guns)
    • Re: [OT] News you wont see on CBS
      ... I brought more than a can of beans to supper, I bought the steak. ... you'll need to change the constitution if you'd like to have more votes for your service dues. ... Do you recall when Ben was pitifully whining when he lost his job and it was all Bush's fault? ...
      (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)