How can we fight the Eminent Domain decision by the Supreme Court?

[shance]

To me with all the other treasonous acts being portrayed against our nation by many of our own leaders, seems we need to combat the 'eminent domain' one at a local level, especially by talking to our neighbors and sending out flyers in the areas where we live.

This is definitely a bipartisan issue, just like the electronic voting issue and well, every other issue and policy that this Administration has used to assault Middle class America.

With that said, this decision brought down by the Supreme Court strips away the power of the land holder and grants more power to developers and commercial builders. Don't think they won't use it.

This could be a potential jack pot for less than ethical individuals. As the economy worsens, some individuals will be more than willing to show their less than ethical colors.

So....what to do? Of course the Federal Government is getting closer to forcing the revolution hand onto Americans. However, other than that, what are any legal precedents or options by which we can oppose this power grabbing decision?

[trof]

1. This way:

Get local government (town, city, county) to pass ordinances prohibiting eminent domain except in TRUE cases of broad public benefit like roads, bridges, utility rights-of-way, etc.

[H2O Man]

11. That's it. n/t

[radfringe]

17. turn it into the "3rd rail" of local politics

- initiate a recall petition on your local office holders who voted/approved the land grab

- protests, LTTE, signs, bumper stickers

- initiate a local referendum which requires voters approval

- attend town hall meetings, keep bringing the issue up and refer to it as a land grab

- and of course get out and vote against them if they are up for re(s)election

[eShirl]

2. the states have to right to limit municipal power to seize property, from

what I understand. So petition your state legislators, or if your state has it use a popular referendum to bring it directly before the voters of your state.

[trof]

3. There ya go.

:thumbsup:

[Wabbajack]

4. electronic voting is not a bipartisan issue

the pukes support it cause it makes them win even when they don't.

[shance]

6. Hi Wabba. Ive been involved with the electronic voting issue

for a while.

In one sense you are definitely right being that Republicans essentially own the companies that create and manufacture the machines. ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia all have strong Republican ties, including Chuck Hagel who won two "stunning upset" victories on machines, surprise*, he owned.

I certainly agree with you there. Where it becomes less a Republican issue and more and corrupt issue by a select few that call themselves Republicans is when you begin to ask the question, so does a Republican actually get to pick their candidate?

Of course not.

Just like everyone else, a candidate is being picked for them, and the vote that you or I just handed in doesnt mean a damn whether either one of us is a Republican or a Democrat. We've both been screwed so to speak.*

If there are big McCain fans, those leaders on Meet the Press aren't just whistling Dixie about McCain not having a chance. They know he doesnt. If those that own the voting machines and optical scanners want George Bush, that's who will win. DOn't forget Ohio, when Wally O Dell said at a Bush fundraiser, that he would make sure Ohio "went to Bush". Without citizens demanding to take back their precincts and their voting tallies, the corporate interests will increasingly take over any fairness in our elections. They will all be rigged very soon if we don't raise holy hell about it, and that will take everyone's involvement and activism, Republican AND Democrat.

[kentuck]

5. Can not the Congress, bi-partisanly, overturn a SC decision??

I think this might one issue a huge majority of Repubs and Dems could agree upon?

[shance]

7. Yes, I think you're right.

n/t

[eShirl]

8. wouldn't that be called a "constitutional amendment?"

just a regular law could be overturned later by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional

[Lone_Wolf]

15. I believe the only legal way is via a Constitutional Amendment...

[Imagine My Surprise]

9. Yet wasn't it the liberal judges who got this through? I'm confused.

[Igel]

21. Yes.

And I can imagine that'll come up in at least one editorial when the next nominee to the SCOTUS is proposed.

The city council that brought the suit that produced the ruling ... also dem majority.

[mikehiggins]

10. Why bother? If the four conservatives opposed the decision

I wouldn't be so quick to reject it.

I read an interesting comment on the thing just recently, arguing that letting the plaintiffs win would seriously impact the right of any governing body, anywhere, to use "eminent domain" to obtain property for any proposed purpose without lengthy and expensive legal action.

The argument was that the people most likely to benefit from the minority opinion would be large corporations and so forth.

This looks like something that might be bad at first glance, but has a legitimate purpose in the long run, just like "eminent domain" as a concept.

We all know of occasions when that policy has been misused but there have been others when it has not. Let's not oppose the SC for not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Lone_Wolf]

12. People in liberal areas should seize companies that closed down shop

in their areas and put it to good use.

For example:

There was a greeting card manufacturer in my neck of the woods that came in 5 years ago. The state, county, and town gave it tax incentives to come here, built an industrial park to accomodate it which included upgraded the highways, public water,etc. Needless to say, it was a big expense for the people of the community.

After 7 years, the company closed shop and outsourced to China. The effect was it used up community resources. It basically extracted quite a bit of wealth from the community.

I say the county should seize the companies assets. The buildings and the assets that were left in the building. Turn it back over to the people of the community who, in actuality, paid for it via tax incentives. They could operate it as a greeting card manufacturer once again, but this time a community/employee owned co-op. It would employee numerous people in the area.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. Imagine" now add USSC ruling of "eminent domain" for private profit VIDEO

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/07_small.mov


this is a powerful message that needs repeated playing...sigh

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. here ya go.....

[hollowdweller]

14. The Dems would have already introduced legislation

if they weren't corporate shills. This cuts to the heart of what our country is all about.

[Ouabache]

16. Confiscate Corporate Property for the Public Good??

looks like the ruling could be used that way.

[oneold1-4u]

18. Just move out!

Let them turn the cities into greater garbage dumps. In fact before you leave town go vote to put the municipal dump right in front of city hall! Power To The People! Fight Back! Make a Big NOISE!
Know that trying something is better than doing nothing.

[realFedUp]

19. The 5th amendment says government may take private property

for "public use", but a 5-4 majority ruled that it
is up to local governments, by and large, to define
that term. A city's carefully formulated economic
development plan is entitled to deference, Justice
Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, even if it
mainly benefits privated entitites.

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleFriendlyCA.jsp?id=1119517513955

In their best interests, cities don't plow down
established middle-class neighborhoods to put up
Wal-Marts. Typically a plan will call for a business
that employs many with a park/public recreation etc.
alongside it. Cities have to fairly compensate homeowners
and move them to other residences. This law has already
been in place for years....usually blighted areas are
resurrected.

[shance]

23. How is someone "fairly" compensated for having their home demolished?

I think that is the question, not to mention these individuals in the latest case revealed they were not compensated even at market level.

My concern is that it could become a problem where profit becomes motive and that people will not and are not fairly compensated. It would be interesting to do a study on this and see how 'fairly' compensated people have been historically. It certainly could be a means for those in power to make a whole lot of money off of the backs of those who don't have as much power, and certainly as much wealth.

When someone's home is not only their biggest financial investment, but their pride and joy, and sense of SAFETY and community, it begs the question if this is indeed a fair proposal to begin with.

Eminent Domain doesnt just uproot families, it potentially destroys communities and ways of life.

My two cents.

[pointless]

22. good little read

about eminent domain
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html