Thanks to the Supreme Court, Freeport TX to seize Land

[Analog]

Freeport moves to seize 3 properties
Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina

FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.
map

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024

 

[KarenMarie]

someone told me when i was a little girl...

if you want to enslave the ppl, control the land, the money and break down the family.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
someone told me when i was a little girl...

if you want to enslave the ppl, control the land, the money and break down the family.

Did the patriot act come in somewhere too?

 

[SSP]

Lets see if this become a trend.

<- glad im not living there, but we have similar laws to seize land for public use.

 

[mwtgg]

Urge to kill... rising.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

killdozer anyone?

 

[BigJ]

One place I would not try this, is in Texas.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: SSP
Lets see if this become a trend.

<- glad im not living there, but we have similar laws to seize land for public use.

Seizing private land for public use is outlined in the Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) to the United States Constitution. However, seizing private land for private use is a dangerous precedent, and something I have a major problem with.

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: SSP
Lets see if this become a trend.

<- glad im not living there, but we have similar laws to seize land for public use.

Seizing private land for public use is outlined in the Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) to the United States Constitution. However, seizing private land for private use is a dangerous precedent, and something I have a major problem with.

No kidding. Think of the possible payola schemes and corruption.

 

[cjgallen]

The Supreme Court broke rule #1: Don't Mess With Texas :|

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
someone told me when i was a little girl...

if you want to enslave the ppl, control the land, the money and break down the family.

Did the patriot act come in somewhere too?

The patriot act sucks in a lot of ways... but it is not irreversible. There are enough ppl in this country who hate it to make a difference. I mean.. we could always vote out of office those who support it and replace them with ppl who will trash it. It is an act, not a set in stone law... for now.

This new shredding of our Constitution is really scary, cause we cannot vote out of power the corrupt ppl who decided that this is a set in stone law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am disappointed, but not surprised. The only thing that can fix this is a Constitutional amendment, but I don't see a business controlled Congress doing that.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: yellowfiero

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
someone told me when i was a little girl...

if you want to enslave the ppl, control the land, the money and break down the family.

Did the patriot act come in somewhere too?

The patriot act sucks in a lot of ways... but it is not irreversible. There are enough ppl in this country who hate it to make a difference. I mean.. we could always vote out of office those who support it and replace them with ppl who will trash it. It is an act, not a set in stone law... for now.

This new shredding of our Constitution is really scary, cause we cannot vote out of power the corrupt ppl who decided that this is a set in stone law.

Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

 

[GRIFFIN1]

If I were rich, I would start trying to buy all the judges homes that voted for this so I could build some porn video stores.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution. We have one side that cares about NOTHING but getting re-elected and the other side who cares about nothing but attacking the other side.

They all suck and it is a total free for all. We have judges who flat out say that they look to international law before our Constitution when deciding what she thinks is best for this country. If that is not a wake up call, i dont know what is.

Sometimes, I am glad that I am old enough that I will not see the total ruination of this country.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: GRIFFIN1
If I were rich, I would start trying to buy all the judges homes that voted for this so I could build some porn video stores.

I think we should buy and pave SCOTUS it is nothing more the urban DC blight.


Shall we start taking a collection to buy these properties?

 

[everman]

I should get a group of investors together to buy a small city around here. We could make tons of money rather than wasting land on pesky citizens...oh and especially all of the churches since they don't pay any taxes.

Sorry if I broke anyone's sarcasm meter.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution. We have one side that cares about NOTHING but getting re-elected and the other side who cares about nothing but attacking the other side.

They all suck and it is a total free for all. We have judges who flat out say that they look to international law before our Constitution when deciding what she thinks is best for this country. If that is not a wake up call, i dont know what is.

Sometimes, I am glad that I am old enough that I will not see the total ruination of this country.

On the Federal level, there's Ron Paul. State wise, PA at least, I'm sure it's the same in the other 49, we have morons who like to give a lot of lip service.

You're right, it's a huge shame. I have no idea what Reagan was thinking when he nominated Kennedy. What a huge mistake that was. At least he got it right with Scalia and to a certain extent O'Connor. Bush better not fvck this up when he most likely will get a chance to nominate a SC Justice.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

On the Federal level, there's Ron Paul. State wise, PA at least, I'm sure it's the same in the other 49, we have morons who like to give a lot of lip service.

You're right, it's a huge shame. I have no idea what Reagan was thinking when he nominated Kennedy. What a huge mistake that was. At least he got it right with Scalia and to a certain extent O'Connor. Bush better not fvck this up when he most likely will get a chance to nominate a SC Justice.

I was listening to Mark Levin today and he was ranting about this... and he was saying that Kennedy was untruthful in his leanings.He said that he worked for the government at the time and had some participation on these hearings. He said that Kennedy said one thing and it was not long after he was elected that he totally changed in his rulings.

to be honest... I think that the average person is being snowed on what is important. The news and the politicians are overplaying stuff that is designed to make the average person not see what is realy going on until something major like this happens.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am disappointed, but not surprised. The only thing that can fix this is a Constitutional amendment, but I don't see a business controlled Congress doing that.

Not true, the majority stated in their opinion that state legislatures could put in amendments to their constitution to not allow it. In fact, this shouldn't even be handled at the federal level, it is a state issue.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Not directly, but if the House and Senate would grow a pair and move to impeach those certain five judges who wouldn't know the Constitution if it slapped them in the face, then we have a fighting chance of this country not slipping any further.

Then again, that would be seen as a political move, and we can't have that, can we?

This will not happen because we do not have ANY politicians that are looking after perserving the Constitution. We have one side that cares about NOTHING but getting re-elected and the other side who cares about nothing but attacking the other side.

They all suck and it is a total free for all. We have judges who flat out say that they look to international law before our Constitution when deciding what she thinks is best for this country. If that is not a wake up call, i dont know what is.

Sometimes, I am glad that I am old enough that I will not see the total ruination of this country.

On the Federal level, there's Ron Paul. State wise, PA at least, I'm sure it's the same in the other 49, we have morons who like to give a lot of lip service.

You're right, it's a huge shame. I have no idea what Reagan was thinking when he nominated Kennedy. What a huge mistake that was. At least he got it right with Scalia and to a certain extent O'Connor. Bush better not fvck this up when he most likely will get a chance to nominate a SC Justice.

It won't be Bush that fs up the judges, it will be the dems who are already gearing up on pounding any Bush nominee. The millions that will be spent on the SC nominees will be similar to a presidential election.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: mwtgg

On the Federal level, there's Ron Paul. State wise, PA at least, I'm sure it's the same in the other 49, we have morons who like to give a lot of lip service.

You're right, it's a huge shame. I have no idea what Reagan was thinking when he nominated Kennedy. What a huge mistake that was. At least he got it right with Scalia and to a certain extent O'Connor. Bush better not fvck this up when he most likely will get a chance to nominate a SC Justice.

I was listening to Mark Levin today and he was ranting about this... and he was saying that Kennedy was untruthful in his leanings.He said that he worked for the government at the time and had some participation on these hearings. He said that Kennedy said one thing and it was not long after he was elected that he totally changed in his rulings.

to be honest... I think that the average person is being snowed on what is important. The news and the politicians are overplaying stuff that is designed to make the average person not see what is realy going on until something major like this happens.

Typical politicians.

I don't think that the average American is misled with regards to politics, it's that they just don't care. And apathy is worse.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I am disappointed, but not surprised. The only thing that can fix this is a Constitutional amendment, but I don't see a business controlled Congress doing that.

Not true, the majority stated in their opinion that state legislatures could put in amendments to their constitution to not allow it. In fact, this shouldn't even be handled at the federal level, it is a state issue.

An elephant can fly if you stick wings on it and shoot it out of an enormous cannon, but just about as likely to happen. There is going to have to be tremendous pressure on legislatures to give up this golden goose. I don't think the threat of losing a job is enough when compensation from a grateful company awaits after their resignation or defeat.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: CPA
It won't be Bush that fs up the judges, it will be the dems who are already gearing up on pounding any Bush nominee. The millions that will be spent on the SC nominees will be similar to a presidential election.

I'm going to feel bad for Bush's nominee, whenever that time comes. (S)he's gonna get railroaded. Anything, no matter how trivial, this person did in their past is going to be brought up in the proceedings. Quite sad.

 

[Nitemare]

I've said it before and I'll say it again

The second amendment gives me the right to bear arms...

The fourth amendment against illegal search and seizure.

Fvck the commie Supreme court....