A Investment forum. InvestmentBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » InvestmentBanter forum » Investment newsgroups » Real Estate
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS Deals Another Blow To The FifthAmendment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 29th 17, 02:42 PM posted to misc.legal,misc.invest.real-estate,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sac.politics,alt.politics.economics
#BeamMeUpScotty[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS Deals Another Blow To The FifthAmendment

On 06/26/2017 10:26 PM, jim wrote:
#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 06/25/2017 04:14 PM, jim wrote:
#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
To take the property required imminent domain....

To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the
State
confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair
value.

If BMUS writes it you know its a lie.

First of all, the state isn't involved other than
providing the legal system in which a local govt
can operate and disputes can be resolved.


State constitutions and laws and court decisions can't violate the U.S.
constitution.


The Constitution says clearly that govts are allowed
to deprive people of life, liberty and property
as long as its done with due process.


And you deleted the text that explained the fact that the State didn't
use due process..... they stole the property without using "imminent
domain".

They can't simply steal it when the Constitution has the way to do
something like that spelled out as the constitutional way to do it.

Like Article 5 tells the government how it will create Amendments...
they can't just bypass that by writing laws to change the constitution.

In the case of stealing property, imminent domain "is" the due process.

And imminent domain says that they pay fair market value. if their law
said the owner can't sell to anyone else then it had to say that the
sale to the government was to be done "within the imminent domain legal
structure" then I'd have no quibble with it.

As it is the County and State colluded to steal from a U.S. citizen,
because eminent domain requires fair market values.

Funny that a Liberal wants minimum wage and yet you can't see the value
of a fair market value. Proof that Liberals don't understand capitalism.

When government sets a minimum wage for government workers I have no
issues with it, but since the constitution doesn't allow for a Nation
wide minimum wage I see it as over reaching their delegated power when
they try to set a national minimum wage. But you want to ignore a
minimum fair market value for imminent domain when it's mandated in the
constitution. You want to let the government do what they have no
delegated power to do "because it violates property rights".

So once again NATIONALIZING private property into PUBLIC PROPERTY with
no delegated power to do it you want the State Government to steal from
citizens.

--
That's Karma
  #2  
Old June 29th 17, 09:42 PM posted to misc.legal,misc.invest.real-estate,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sac.politics,alt.politics.economics
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS Deals Another Blow To The FifthAmendment

#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 06/26/2017 10:26 PM, jim wrote:
#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 06/25/2017 04:14 PM, jim wrote:
#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
To take the property required imminent domain....

To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the
State
confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair
value.

If BMUS writes it you know its a lie.

First of all, the state isn't involved other than
providing the legal system in which a local govt
can operate and disputes can be resolved.

State constitutions and laws and court decisions can't violate the U.S.
constitution.


The Constitution says clearly that govts are allowed
to deprive people of life, liberty and property
as long as its done with due process.


And you deleted the text that explained the fact that the State didn't
use due process..... they stole the property without using "imminent
domain".


You don't explain things you just tell lies.

You certainly can't explain that the state stole it since
the property still belongs to the plauntiffs and the state
has never shown the slightest interest in taking the property.

They can't simply steal it when the Constitution has the way to do
something like that spelled out as the constitutional way to do it.


Where is the process spelled out in the Constitution?

if their law
said the owner can't sell to anyone else


That's not what the law says. That's
just your personal lie about what the law says.

then it had to say that the
sale to the government was to be done "within the imminent
domain legal structure" then I'd have no quibble with it.


The local govt doesn't want the property.
Do you think the federal govt trumps the local
taxpayers when it comes to deciding what they
need or want?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will Obama name a Jew or Hispanic to SCOTUS? [email protected] Stocks & shares 4 May 24th 09 05:52 AM
The sadly obligatory SCOTUS birth-certificate post Doobie Keebler[_2_] Stocks & shares 34 December 8th 08 07:34 PM
Top 10 bombings by death toll , blow up a train and you are a terrorist , blow up a city and you are a HERO kangarooistan Australia 0 November 15th 07 12:53 AM
For the blow hards to blow on Blash Stocks & shares 0 March 1st 06 03:11 PM
Netflix Deals Blockbuster New Blow As It Slashes Fees [email protected] Stocks & shares 0 November 1st 04 11:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 InvestmentBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.