Did anyone see NOW's segment on the Property Confiscation issue?

[hollowdweller]

It was heartbreaking. I mean what is going on in our country? I lived thru the 60's and this is the worst I've seen it. Not only the war but if you watched the show it was clearly that the cities were evicting poor people to move in the rich.

Never in my life have I heard so much talk in the gov't realm of morality and yet nobody has the will to address the great moral questions of our time. People getting their land taken? People losing their pensions they worked their whole lives for? People unable to afford healthcare?

How the hell can we criticize Saddam or stand as the voice of morality or even plain JUSTICE in the country when we have stuff like this going on.

[Sugarbleus]

1. I couldn't say it any better..

We ranted about this yesterday in DU. Oddly, some posters thought the idea wasn't all that bad. (???????????????????)

Truth is, some states, maybe all of them, have consistently moved people from their homes all along...Using some other statute to do so--like "sunset" laws and other gobbledy gook legalism. NOW, however, it's perfectly legal across the board and out in the open. I fear what we'll see happen next. It's unconscionable.

[Mythsaje]

2. It's ALWAYS been legal

via Eminent Domain--it's just that a challenge finally reacted the SC and they, predictably, ruled like they had their heads up their asses.

Damn methane breathers.

Not a surprise, given most of their other recent rulings.

edit to fix a typo

[gaia_gardener]

3. Well, see, that's the thing

they don't make laws, they only rule on the constitutionality of laws. Right now, there is no constitutional right to property. The gov't owns all of our land and merely gives us the right to live on it and exploit it.

The way to fix this is to get laws passed redefining eminent domain.

[Mythsaje]

4. No Constitutional Right to property.

Says it all right there, doesn't it?

Do the Freepers know this?

Sure, the founding fathers MEANT for there to be...it's pretty clear in their writings.

But, then again, they didn't mean the Bill of Rights to be the only defenses we had against tyranny. The whole damn ball of wax was supposed to clearly state the limitations of federal power.

Didn't take long for THAT to erode.

[gaia_gardener]

5. We have recourse

there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit laws being passed to limit eminent domain. It's just something else we have to focus on (like we don't have enough, right?).

[Mythsaje]

6. Nope...no limits on limits...n/t

[earth mom]

7. I saw part of Now-it was insightful. I've been feeling so angry and uneasy

about the Supreme Court ruling and I can't believe some people around here defended it today and yesterday. I don't get that kind of attitude. I just don't understand how anyone could not feel threatened by it or who think it won't get abused right and left by the greedy and the powerful. With this issue, Greed and Power go hand in hand-ethics and morals be damned. :grr: :cry: