Re: Emminent Domain, Adverse Use, easements, etc.

Posted by Mark - IN. on March 19, 2006 at 11:55:50 from (205.188.117.14):

In Reply to: Emminent Domain, Adverse Use, easements, etc. posted by jdemaris on March 19, 2006 at 08:23:50:

Some months ago, just prior to the US Supreme Court's ruling in Connecticut in favor of Eminent Domain case for Pfizer Pharmacitical, I posted on this. Little or no reaction. The US Supreme Court was just about to decide the case where Eminent Domain was to be extended to private owners and businesses to "increse tax bases for the good of...?" and few cared to hear about or address it, until after it happened. Incredible.

The US Supreme Court can review cases at anyti,e in the future if they are brought back into the US Supreme Court, but generally are reluctant to do so. And, the US Supreme Court had the option and opportunity to re-visit the exact case that brought us this whole mess a couple of weeks after their initial ruling, and refused to do so.

So, here's where I think that we are, and posted about it a couple of months ago, was misunderstood by one or a few, so I'll try again, and perhaps explain myself better this time.

Here we go: It's unlikely that the US Supreme Court will set precident by re-hearing Eminent Domain again, so we go back into the US Supreme Court with a different arguement and attack it from a different angle. Perhaps arguing that we have a Constitutional right to protect our property - not a Constitutional interpretation like the Eminent Domain issue that extended it to private owners taking from private owners to generate a larger tax base, but instead an actual Constitutional right to protect our property. How can we enjoy our Constitutional right to protect our property if an "interpretation" says that we can't own property? That's just one possibilty.

Now here's my reasoning for that arguement, the same one that got me misunderstood the last time, and I hope the same person that jumped down my throat the last time takes a second this time to realize what it is that I'm trying to say before he does the same thing. Ever since a Supreme Court Justice wrote in the majority oppinion against the State of New Jersey (used to reimburse Parochial schools for bus fares for students/children) that there is a seperation of church and state, many have used that ruling to say no Pledge of Alligiance in public schools, no prayers in legislative sessions, no posting of the 10 Commandments on public property, no religious symbals on city crests, etc. You get the idea, and they "WERE" winning those cases, UNTIL recently when those (myself included) went back into courts and began arguing another case, "attacking it from a different angle", and now they (we) are winning. Instead of attacking the seperation of church and state arguement, the arguement changed to "I have a Constitutional right to free speech, and these guys are suppressing it, and that can't be". That's a lttle simplistic, but you get the idea - We can't fight Eminent Domain or seperation of church and state persay, but we can change the outcome by arguing a different arguement. It can and has worked for church and state, so such a strategy just might work with Eminent Domain. And since the overall complexion of the Supreme Court has changed with the addition of Roberts and Alito, perhaps its time to make that "OTHER" arguement to change the outcome, eh?

Incidentally, I used to live in Elkhart, IN. before selling and moving to Bristol. A few years ago, these 2 athiests argued and won that those huge, beautiful mable 10 Commandments that sat outside the Municipal Bldg on 2nd Street for decades had to move off of public property. We fought it for awhile, but the ICLU (Indiana's version/little brother of the ACLU) had deeper pockets than we did. So, someone donated private property on the south-east corner of the Main St. bridge and they were moved there, and are under lights now. For decades few saw them as they sat on 2nd St, and now everyone coming into the town from the north can't help but see them. Ha Ha Ha Ha. And the funny part? Not long after being moved there, and athiest type that worked somewhere across the street became offended that he now had to see them all the time and complained. Too friggin bad, they're now on private property, is no issue of a seperation of church and state, shove it right up his a$$ as deep as he can take it.

We can fight and win Eminent Domain, we just can't call it that. I have faith in the NEW complexion of Justices.

Mark

Replies:

Add a Reply Name: E-Mail: Subject: Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: Email Notification: If you check this box, email will be sent to you whenever someone replies to this message. Your email address must be entered above to receive notification. This notification will be cancelled automatically after 2 weeks.

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]