SCOTUS, emminent domain & capitalism

Capitalism in its purest form puts the ultimate power in the hands of the consumer, the individual. Socialism in its purest form puts the ultimate power in the hands of the establishment. No society can exist with both present. Capitalistic societies like the US run on the premise that, generally, power remains in the hands of the consumer except where it is impractical (such as public utilities, law enforcement and fire department, etc).

In pure capitalism, the goal is to gain the best profit (not the most money). But we don't live in a pure capitalistic society.

 

Best profit is what is at the time in the eye of the buyer and seller. There are no fixed rules for what the best profit is. The requisite changes all the time. It has nothing to do with any moral or economic laws.

 

The government's task, I believe, is the most difficult of all. To break even.

The government is not in the profit making business.

 

This could be a two edged sword. When Bush'es Reconstructionist friends gain control a court could decide that slum clearance for new OPC church construction is "constitutional.".

 

The problem with your analogy is that it is the liberal Justices that made the decision government could steal your land to help a real estate developer make a lot of money as long as the government got their share.

 

SCOTUS never made that determination. They made the determination that economic development has adequately been demonstrated to be a valid public use.

 

And the effect was and will be...?

 

... no different that current public domain procedures.

 

To that, I politely reply...bunk.

The process will be the same, but if I'm a developer and I can put a couple of city councilmen in my pocket (not all that hard to do in city government), I can take any man's land I want to put up my development. Or I can take someone elses land to drill my gas well. Which enriches who besides the city?

My personal opinion is the decision will be altered or changed in the not so distant future. The outcry from the public has been enormous and cases will be coming soon to test this new empowerment of government.

 

Well, you could do that before, with anything from football stadiums to municipally run facilities. As I said, no different than before.

Additionally, your presumption that a person is all of a sudden corrupt somehow just because he/she is on the city council is ridiculous. You clearly lack much knowlege of civil government. Most city councils are part-time positions, paying little, and sometimes, nothing. It's a rather thankless job, and those who run for local councils typically do so out of a genuine desire for civic service. Your generalized accusation is unrighteous, unchristian, and unscriptural. City councils tend to be grass roots, nonpartisan, and in touch with the local people.

SCOTUS does not make decisions based on public opinion. They base it on Constitutional adherence or nonadherence (a point that can be argued separately). The only reason this decision would be overturned is if, in the future, a separate case involving eminent domain for economic development is brought to SCOTUS that demonstrates such a use was not a public use (similar to what happenned with the "separate but equal" issue regarding race).

 

Well, you could do that before, with anything from football stadiums to municipally run facilities. As I said, no different than before.

Additionally, your presumption that a person is all of a sudden corrupt somehow just because he/she is on the city council is ridiculous. You clearly lack much knowlege of civil government. Most city councils are part-time positions, paying little, and sometimes, nothing. It's a rather thankless job, and those who run for local councils typically do so out of a genuine desire for civic service. Your generalized accusation is unrighteous, unchristian, and unscriptural. City councils tend to be grass roots, nonpartisan, and in touch with the local people.
</font>[/QUOTE]So now the insults begin. You don't like your opinions questioned very much, do you?

Maybe it would please you to know that I have served on several city boards and was a two term city councilman.

You're right , it's a pretty much thankless job and if you don't believe some councilmen in some cities receive insider information on real estate transactions, you are incredibly naive.

 

SCOTUS does not make decisions based on public opinion. They base it on Constitutional adherence or nonadherence (a point that can be argued separately). The only reason this decision would be overturned is if, in the future, a separate case involving eminent domain for economic development is brought to SCOTUS that demonstrates such a use was not a public use . </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the lesson. You are incredibly knowledgeable about a wide variety of subjects. However, if you read my post, you will see I said essentially the same thingyou did. I just used a lot fewer words. Of course I wasn't trying to deliver a lecture.

 

The Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain shows just what the Liberal Elite thinks of poor people: Let them eat cake!