|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.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS Deals Another Blow To The FifthAmendment
On 06/26/2017 10:26 PM, jim wrote:
On 06/25/2017 04:14 PM, jim wrote:
To take the property required imminent domain....
To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the
confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair
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.
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
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
|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 06:34 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 14th 07 11:53 PM|
|For the blow hards to blow on||Blash||Stocks & shares||0||March 1st 06 02:11 PM|
|Netflix Deals Blockbuster New Blow As It Slashes Fees||[email protected]||Stocks & shares||0||November 1st 04 10:55 PM|