More Eminent Domain Abuse
Yet another reason for Congress to impeach every Supreme Court Justice who voted to allow the government to abuse Eminent Domain in violation of our Constitutional right to property.
In Riviera Beach, Florida a community of almost 6,000 people is being threatened with the use of Eminent Domain in order to make way for a private contractor to build luxury condos, a yacht club, and other amenities for the rich in place of this coastal community.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: Eminent Domain was only put in the Constitution to allow the building of public utilities like roads and other vital infrastructure. It was never meant to be used to steal land from private citizens to give to other private citizens in order to raise tax revenues.
So who is the mastermind behind this cretinous, criminal action? The mayor of Riviera Beach, Michael Brown, who, by the way, also happens to be a local realtor who stands to make a personal fortune selling the high priced condos his contractor friend wants to build.
It gets better. He’s a Democrat. You know, the party that supposedly sticks up for the little guy, but in reality caters to the rich at the expense of the little guy.
In typical Democrat fashion this creep has decided that he knows what is best for the residents of Riviera Beach, and that it for the lower income people to be driven out of town to make room for wealthy elitist. I’ll bet George Soros just loves this guy.
Oh but the Democrats are for the working man, right? They stand by the labor unions to show their solidarity with the downtrodden American laborer. They support a vast welfare system to “help” the poor. They think that the wealthy need to be robbed so the poor can live better.
Bull crap!
The Democrats couldn’t care less about the working man because the working man is not dependent on them for his livelihood. They stand by the labor unions because the unions have loads of money for their campaigns. They support a vast welfare system to keep a large segment of the population dependent on them to live and create a loyal voting bloc. They want to rob the wealthy to punish them for working hard and succeeding, and also to line their own pockets with ill-gotten gains.
Want proof? Look to Riviera Beach Florida.
In Riviera Beach, Florida a community of almost 6,000 people is being threatened with the use of Eminent Domain in order to make way for a private contractor to build luxury condos, a yacht club, and other amenities for the rich in place of this coastal community.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: Eminent Domain was only put in the Constitution to allow the building of public utilities like roads and other vital infrastructure. It was never meant to be used to steal land from private citizens to give to other private citizens in order to raise tax revenues.
So who is the mastermind behind this cretinous, criminal action? The mayor of Riviera Beach, Michael Brown, who, by the way, also happens to be a local realtor who stands to make a personal fortune selling the high priced condos his contractor friend wants to build.
It gets better. He’s a Democrat. You know, the party that supposedly sticks up for the little guy, but in reality caters to the rich at the expense of the little guy.
In typical Democrat fashion this creep has decided that he knows what is best for the residents of Riviera Beach, and that it for the lower income people to be driven out of town to make room for wealthy elitist. I’ll bet George Soros just loves this guy.
Oh but the Democrats are for the working man, right? They stand by the labor unions to show their solidarity with the downtrodden American laborer. They support a vast welfare system to “help” the poor. They think that the wealthy need to be robbed so the poor can live better.
Bull crap!
The Democrats couldn’t care less about the working man because the working man is not dependent on them for his livelihood. They stand by the labor unions because the unions have loads of money for their campaigns. They support a vast welfare system to keep a large segment of the population dependent on them to live and create a loyal voting bloc. They want to rob the wealthy to punish them for working hard and succeeding, and also to line their own pockets with ill-gotten gains.
Want proof? Look to Riviera Beach Florida.
posted by Daniel Levesque at
6:08 AM
20 Comments:
I remember when they built Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. I was a young boy and Eminent Domain was the issue and it was all over the news.
The builders wanted all the people on that hill out and he wanted the property for the Stadium.
I always wondered why the Mayor or the Governor didn't step in and save those homes, they didn't. The builders won out and Dodger Stadium was built.
How do I know all this, because one of the builders was my grandfather and by the way, my grandfather, Mayor and Governor were all Republicans.
By
Ranando, at 6:32 AM
Here would be a perfect example where progressives and conservatives could unite. WHO - besides those who stand to profit - would be in favor of this interpretation of Eminent Domain?!
By
Dan Trabue, at 7:22 AM
how about Suppreme Court Justices Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, Sandra Day-Oconor, Suitor, Stevens, and that other liberal on the bench. You know, the 5 who declared this interperatation of Eminent Domain to be Constituutional.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 7:25 AM
Not liberals. Moderates. And it was a horrid decision on their part.
By
Dan Trabue, at 7:48 AM
My Grandfathers Funeral was the only Funeral I have ever been to where everyone was glad the SOB was dead.
He believed in Eminent Domain as long as he was the one taking the property and believe me he took alot.
He was one of the founding fathers of Los Angeles and if water could run over it, he took it. Many poor people lost their homes because of the LA River, California Aqueduct and anything else he and his cronies could get.
My grandmother spent her last days making up for this Bastard and Oh Ya, like I said before, he was a Republican.
By
Ranando, at 9:22 AM
This eminent domain stuff has gotten completely out of hand. Yet another reason we need to have strict constructionists on the court.
By
Dionne, at 9:40 AM
"Not liberals. Moderates"
Bull Crap!
O'Connor I'll give you, but those other 4 are notorious liberals.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 10:25 AM
Tell me some of their liberal positions. Are the generally against wars? Are they wary of giving too much power to large corporations? Too much power to the Executive office?
In a smaller gov't role in matters such as what kind of medical procedures you can and can't have, what you can and can't smoke, who you can and can't marry...oh wait, smaller gov't is a conservative notion. Or is it?
Anyhow, you get my drift. Feel free to identify exactly how they're liberal. I have my doubts but well could be wrong. I suspect they're more on the moderate side, but I'd be glad to learn they're more liberal (God knows we could use some on the bench).
By
Dan Trabue, at 11:12 AM
daniel, you raise some of the best arguments on this blog. however, i don't see how ANYBODY could disagree with this point, Republican or Democrat!! i thought the constitution was by the people, for the people! not for the government's personal use for financial gain...
LibbY!
By
Libby, at 11:22 AM
I believe most states are churning out legislation to counter this horrible ruling by the Supreme Court. I haven't done a lot of reading on this, even though it really agitates me, but I'm under the impression there is a lot of bipartisan support for reversing this.
By
Anonymous, at 12:49 PM
Yikes... I seen this on Fox, and it looked really unfair from up here... still learning a lot about American politics, but if you don't watch it, you'll end up with no property rights..... like Canada, we don't have any.. period .. socialist centrus progressives wielding their ugly heads.. :-(
By
ABFreedom, at 3:58 PM
Just two points.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a 'moderate?'
Ranando, you sound like a nice liberal. Is it within in your character to be glad that someone is dead?
By
Rick's Corner, at 5:01 PM
Dan,
You mention are they generally against wars. What's all this about? I don't know anyone except nut cases that are in favor of us being at war.
This is where the libs are so out of touch. I was there in the sixties. Went to Woodstock. Held up the two fingers for peace. But this is the peace at any price gig that is characteristic of modern liberalism. Time to get over VietNam, a Democrats war I should add.
By
Rick's Corner, at 5:09 PM
Rick,
You bet, I would be really GLAD if Osama was dead. I would be really happy if anyone who had anything to do with 911 was DEAD.
Yes, it's in my character.
By
Ranando, at 5:12 PM
Kelo is an interesting decision, and everybody ought to read it. It cites cases decided long ago, and as far as I can tell, it stays in keeping with those decisions when it declares that a city government has the right to sieze private property and turn it over to other private parties.
[[ . . . the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. ("A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void.") Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a "carefully considered" development plan. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case.]]
In the Kelo case, an economically-troubled city was engaged in a major reorganization, and invoked eminent domain against those homeowners who wouldn't negotiate. Though the court declined "to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected," the decision also implied that had any evidence been produced that the city's purpose was something other than what it said, that would be considered when deciding the legitimacy of the taking. Much was made of the idea that the taking was in accordance with a "carefully formulated" plan drawn up by the city government.
The decision also states that they can find "no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized." In other words, just as people need water, and roads, and breathable air, they need jobs, and therefore attracting jobs is a valid public purpose.
The case that followed, the New Jersey case, was strong with the stench of an illegitimate purpose, and this one stinks as well, so they might not be covered by Kelo at all.
I'm not intending to defend Kelo here. I mean only to argue that the decision was much more narrow in scope than it's been made out to be; a case which involves a reasonable suspicion of graft or self-dealing might very well be decided differently.
By
catastrophile, at 5:16 PM
evil dan t - moderates my ass!
Leftist, elitist snobs that ruled the STATE can do whatever they want.
BAH!
Great post good Dan.
(Heh. Evil Dan and the good Dan...
Relax evil Dan, I'm just kidding, but not about the Marxist supremes.)
By
The Conservative UAW Guy, at 5:24 PM
Are you saying dems have their own set of demons/greedy asses? But of course they do. By far dems do stick up for the little guy. Just like by far republicans aren't rich, racist bastards. There's scum on both sides of the fence.
Liberal,democrat, conservative,republican, seriously, "WHO - besides those who stand to profit - would be in favor of this interpretation of Eminent Domain"?!
Oddly enough I thought this was something big business would thoroughly support, and we all know which party represents big business.
Frankly I think there should be time limits on SCJ's. This lifetime appointment thing is bull. There is no way to know how someone will vote on any given issue until you have seen them in action. Do you really believe any President would have appointed even one of those Justices who voted in favor of this atrocity? Of course not. I think 10 years would be sufficent. After that they retire and are replaced.
By
wanda, at 7:47 PM
O'Connor wrote a scathing dissent on Kelo, BTW.
Well posted, Dan. I owe you a link.
By
bob, at 8:34 PM
I guess that makes two more weighing in on the notion that 4-5 of our justices are wacky liberals with giving no reasons. Just a statement. "Believe it - they're liberals...I can sense it in my bones!"
Rick (from Ricks Corner):
Fair enough point: I'll adjust my question to, Are they against most wars?
Sure, "everybody" hates war. But not everybody is dedicated to avoiding them. I'd suggest that progressives are dedicated to the notion that most wars are optional, not necessary, and that most wars can and should be avoided and that war is the failure of creativity and diplomacy.
As this is a basic precept of Liberals, I ask the question: Is there any evidence that these justices are opposed to most wars?
Or should we just continue to take your all's word for it that they are evil liberal baby eaters?
By
Dan Trabue, at 4:45 AM
Dan,
The record these jusdges have amassed on the Supreme Court speaks for itself. WIth the exception of Sandra day-O'Conor, who could be replaced with a coin flip she's so inconsistent (I guess that would be a good definition of "moderate".) the other 4 who ruled so grievously on the Emionent Domain Issue have a record of coming down on the liberal side of nearly 100% of the cases they hear. Hence, they are liberals, NOT moderates.
Feel free to look it up. It's all a matter of public record.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:03 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home