Ignorance on this board is ASTOUNDING!

Twedle Dee and Twedle Dumb, go on beliveing that the City of NY could take this land now after this contraversy...

Ugh, no wonder this nation is in such trouble.
 
Jarod said:
It is not posable because to do so would violate the 1st, hands down.... Nothing to do with emotion. To say otherwise is to display great ignorance.
Click to expand...

Judges don't care about the constitution. They do what they please, and make up some bullshit that everyone but zealots can plainly see through.

It's called judicial activism, and both "sides" do it.
 
Jarod said:
Pure Ignorance!

You are FLAT out WRONG.

Maybe you should start practicing law, see how WRONG you are.
Click to expand...

Jarhead, as Damo pointed out, you are just emoting. You have failed to show me one damn thing to prove what I stated is wrong, you just throw out your profound emo opinion, as if we are just supposed to take your illiterate word for it! Look, you can jump up and down, scream, pull your hair, stomp your feet, whatever... it doesn't change facts, laws, or SCOTUS rulings...wish it did, but it doesn't.

Now, Jarhead, you claim you are a lawyer, so you should know how this all works... A judge doesn't care what your opinion is, he doesn't hear cases on the basis of what you think should be the law. You have to present case law precedent for the court to consider, and so far, you have failed to give the first example of case law, where the defendant in an ED case, successfully prevailed on the basis the "true intent" was something other than what is proposed by the state. Such a case does not exist, because "true intent" is not questioned in an eminent domain proceeding. I laid out the exact procedure, and it simply doesn't require the state to be burdened with proving their intent is 'true', only that it is 'public interest'.
 
The country has come a long way since Thomas Jefferson believed he was violating the constitution by buying Loisiana.
 
Jarod said:
Twedle Dee and Twedle Dumb, go on beliveing that the City of NY could take this land now after this contraversy...

Ugh, no wonder this nation is in such trouble.
Click to expand...

The controversy doesn't have anything to do with an eminent domain taking. The court can NOT prejudice itself by determining the case on the basis of a public controversy unrelated to the stated public interest for the ED taking. That would completely undermine any and all ED proceedings, as people would simply challenge the legitimacy of the stated intent in ANY ED case! The city doesn't REALLY want to build a highway across my pasture, they just want to take my land away because they knew I wanted to build a church there! Do you see what a problem such a precedent might set?
 
hotdog said:
Would the U.S government ever allow an american billionaire to buy an island from another country and then declare themself king of the island. The U.S government can't tax foreign citizens. It would be far more expensive to purchase the soverignty of an island but it could be profitable. Also it would be fun to be a king. Do you think greece would be willing to sell one of their islands or would a billionaire have to find a third world country?
Click to expand...

I thought Greece was a third world country!
 
Dixie said:
The controversy doesn't have anything to do with an eminent domain taking. The court can NOT prejudice itself by determining the case on the basis of a public controversy unrelated to the stated public interest for the ED taking. That would completely undermine any and all ED proceedings, as people would simply challenge the legitimacy of the stated intent in ANY ED case! The city doesn't REALLY want to build a highway across my pasture, they just want to take my land away because they knew I wanted to build a church there! Do you see what a problem such a precedent might set?
Click to expand...


Actually, what you describe as a problem is the way it works. While the courts will not second-guess whether the reasons for the taking are good ones, the courts also will not permit the government to take property for prohibited reasons (i.e., reasons that violate the First Amendment) based on pretextual reasons.

Justice Kennedy described this in his concurrence in the Kelo case:

A court applying rational-basis review under the Public Use Clause should strike down a taking that, by a clear showing, is intended to favor a particular private party, with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, just as a court applying rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause must strike down a government classification that is clearly intended to injure a particular class of private parties, with only incidental or pretextual public justifications. See Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 446-447, 450 (1985); Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 533-536 (1973). As the trial court in this case was correct to observe, "Where the purpose [of a taking] is economic development and that development is to be carried out by private parties or private parties will be benefited, the court must decide if the stated public purpose--economic advantage to a city sorely in need of it--is only incidental to the benefits that will be confined on private parties of a development plan." 2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 263. See also ante, at 7.
Click to expand...


So claiming that the government can legitimately come up with a pretextual reason, tax revenues, to take the property by eminent domain is bullshit.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, what you describe as a problem is the way it works. While the courts will not second-guess whether the reasons for the taking are good ones, the courts also will not permit the government to take property for prohibited reasons (i.e., reasons that violate the First Amendment) based on pretextual reasons.

Justice Kennedy described this in his concurrence in the Kelo case:

So claiming that the government can legitimately come up with a pretextual reason, tax revenues, to take the property by eminent domain is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Well, Nigel, at least I'll hand it to ya, you did present something in case law to support this bird-brained idea of Jarhead's, but it doesn't really fly. The Kelo case was specifically regarding ED for the purpose of economic development, that's what made it so significant. Prior to this, ED was only allowed when a compelling need for a public interest was at stake, like a highway or fire department, not a Wal-mart. In the Kelo case, the issue was community prosperity, through commercial usage, and the court found in favor of it, in that particular case.

Kennedy: Where the purpose [of a taking] is economic development and that development is to be carried out by private parties or private parties will be benefited, the court must decide if the stated public purpose--economic advantage to a city sorely in need of it--is only incidental to the benefits that will be confined on private parties of a development plan.

If the city of New York were to decide to take this land, it would not be for development of private parties, it would be for City of New York development. So Kelo is not a good case law example, for that reason alone. Still, this does illustrate the court doesn't make determination on the presumption of a false pretext. If NYC took the property for the stated intent of selling it to Donald Trump, who promised to build a huge conference center/hotel, which would in turn, generate huge tax profits for NYC... THEN the court would have to decide if the 'public interest' was incidental to the benefits Donald Trump would receive. But that is not what NYC would likely do, in an eminent domain taking... again, I refer you to the number of attorneys working for NYC.

You've still not demonstrated how an ED taking, is a violation of any right in this case. If there were no mosques in the area, if NYC banned mosque building, or something of that nature, you might be able to show this to be the case, but simply taking the property under eminent domain, is not prohibiting them from practicing their religious beliefs. It's just not! You haven't made that case, you've only INSISTED that is the case!
 
Dixie said:
Well, Nigel, at least I'll hand it to ya, you did present something in case law to support this bird-brained idea of Jarhead's, but it doesn't really fly. The Kelo case was specifically regarding ED for the purpose of economic development, that's what made it so significant. Prior to this, ED was only allowed when a compelling need for a public interest was at stake, like a highway or fire department, not a Wal-mart. In the Kelo case, the issue was community prosperity, through commercial usage, and the court found in favor of it, in that particular case.

Kennedy: Where the purpose [of a taking] is economic development and that development is to be carried out by private parties or private parties will be benefited, the court must decide if the stated public purpose--economic advantage to a city sorely in need of it--is only incidental to the benefits that will be confined on private parties of a development plan.

If the city of New York were to decide to take this land, it would not be for development of private parties, it would be for City of New York development. So Kelo is not a good case law example, for that reason alone. Still, this does illustrate the court doesn't make determination on the presumption of a false pretext. If NYC took the property for the stated intent of selling it to Donald Trump, who promised to build a huge conference center/hotel, which would in turn, generate huge tax profits for NYC... THEN the court would have to decide if the 'public interest' was incidental to the benefits Donald Trump would receive. But that is not what NYC would likely do, in an eminent domain taking... again, I refer you to the number of attorneys working for NYC.

You've still not demonstrated how an ED taking, is a violation of any right in this case. If there were no mosques in the area, if NYC banned mosque building, or something of that nature, you might be able to show this to be the case, but simply taking the property under eminent domain, is not prohibiting them from practicing their religious beliefs. It's just not! You haven't made that case, you've only INSISTED that is the case!
Click to expand...


Your basic position is that the government can come up with a pretextual reason to take the land (tax revenue) and the court's can't do anything about it. That's just no the case. The court's can look behind the stated reasons for the taking to determine whether it is pretextual.

Here is a conservative legal commentator discussing this very issue:

http://volokh.com/2010/08/23/property-rights-eminent-domain-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/
 
NigelTufnel said:
Your basic position is that the government can come up with a pretextual reason to take the land (tax revenue) and the court's can't do anything about it. That's just no the case. The court's can look behind the stated reasons for the taking to determine whether it is pretextual.

Here is a conservative legal commentator discussing this very issue:

http://volokh.com/2010/08/23/property-rights-eminent-domain-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/
Click to expand...

This issue is not about "conservatives" versus "non-conservatives" so it doesn't matter the political affiliations of your sources. The person who wrote the linked peice, is apparently not aware of how eminent domain takings work, with regard to the court proceedings. There is very limited consideration given to supposed "pretext" and it always presumes the state is being forthright with any reason it uses eminent domain. You, and the other pinheads here, want to establish some kind of "pretext" rule, with regard to ED, and it simply doesn't exist.

Let's also consider the "pretext" of the group who currently owns the property? There is no mosque currently at that location. This is a "pretext" or proposal of something they want to build at some point in the future. Can they prevent an ED taking on the "pretext" they plan to build a mosque? I think that has to be also looked at by the court, in such a case.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Your basic position is that the government can come up with a pretextual reason to take the land (tax revenue) and the court's can't do anything about it. That's just no the case. The court's can look behind the stated reasons for the taking to determine whether it is pretextual.

Here is a conservative legal commentator discussing this very issue:

http://volokh.com/2010/08/23/property-rights-eminent-domain-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/
Click to expand...

The courts generally go along with the government. You don't become a judge by being anti-government. The law profession is a mostly a bunch of fascist central planner fucks.
 
Dixie said:
This issue is not about "conservatives" versus "non-conservatives" so it doesn't matter the political affiliations of your sources. The person who wrote the linked peice, is apparently not aware of how eminent domain takings work, with regard to the court proceedings. There is very limited consideration given to supposed "pretext" and it always presumes the state is being forthright with any reason it uses eminent domain. You, and the other pinheads here, want to establish some kind of "pretext" rule, with regard to ED, and it simply doesn't exist.

Let's also consider the "pretext" of the group who currently owns the property? There is no mosque currently at that location. This is a "pretext" or proposal of something they want to build at some point in the future. Can they prevent an ED taking on the "pretext" they plan to build a mosque? I think that has to be also looked at by the court, in such a case.
Click to expand...


Let's see on the one hand we have Dixie. On the other hand we have this guy:

ILYA SOMIN is an Associate Professor at George Mason University School of Law. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and the study of popular political participation and its implications for constitutional democracy. Somin currently serves as Co-Editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review, one of the country's top-rated law and economics journals. His work has appeared in numerous scholarly journals, including the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Critical Review, and others. He has also published articles in a variety of popular press outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com, Newark Star Ledger, Orlando Sentinel, South China Morning Post, Legal Times, National Law Journal and Reason. He has been quoted or interviewed by the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, and the Voice of America, among other media. In July 2009, he testified on property rights issues at the United States Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Somin writes regularly for the popular Volokh Conspiracy law and politics blog.

During the Fall 2008 semester, he served as visiting professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Somin has previously been a visiting professor at the University of Hamburg, Germany, and the University of Torcuato Di Tella in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Before joining the faculty at George Mason, he was the John M. Olin Fellow in Law at Northwestern University Law School in 2002-2003. In 2001-2002, he clerked for the Hon. Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Professor Somin earned his B.A., Summa Cum Laude, at Amherst College, M.A. in Political Science from Harvard University, and J.D. from Yale Law School.
Click to expand...


Given this guy's weak credentials and CV, I think I'll go ahead and take Dixie's word for it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Let's see on the one hand we have Dixie. On the other hand we have this guy:

Given this guy's weak credentials and CV, I think I'll go ahead and take Dixie's word for it.
Click to expand...

Well it's really good you're taking my word over his, because I am the living legend, and therefore, immensely more qualified in opinions. Just so you know, I did read the story at the link as well as the other pinhead's opining over religious freedoms, but what you ALL seem to be missing, is the legal establishment that something is pretext, and there is no mechanism in an ED proceeding to bring this into question. You begin your argument from a fictitious point, where a court has already established the state had a "pretext", and it was to deny them property rights because of their religion. These things have not been established by a court or judge, and that would have to happen before an eminent domain taking was initiated, for it to effect the eminent domain process. Again, the state is not obligated to "prove" some pretext exists, or doesn't exist, it only states intent, and it can only be for public interest. The property owner has the due process right to contest the stated intent, not to challenge the stated intent, or speculate on it's pretext.

Such a case could be made separate from an ED proceeding, and probably would. The issue of ED would be decided, probably in favor of the city, without regard for the property owner's complaints over legitimacy of their intent, that would not enter in to the record, because it isn't allowed under current ED law. Let's be clear, I don't like ED law, I am not arguing that this is how things should be, I hate it... but that's how it is, when it comes to ED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top