228233 Bullies, 4376 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 26
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 12 3 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. warnerj5000 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Posts
    357

    Posted On:
    11/04/2005 10:26am


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter H.
    The Federal Government isn't preventing anyone from using eminent domain in any way, they simple are withholding Federal Funds to States that do use it in a way they don't agree with. That has long been an accepted method for the Fed to influence States (anyone remember speed limits and Federal highway funds?), last time I checked, there was no Constitutional Guarnatee of Federal Funds.
    Sorry, yeah this should have been obvious to me.
    heh.
    I don't know what I was thinking.

    Anyway, thanks for clearing it up.
  2. kepetri is offline
    kepetri's Avatar

    Multi Pass

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away
    Posts
    329

    Posted On:
    11/04/2005 10:35am

    supporting member
     Style: Currently none

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Well, this is the relevant part of the house version.

    109th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 4128

    AN ACT
    To protect private property rights.

    HR 4128 EH


    109th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 4128

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    AN ACT
    To protect private property rights.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005'.

    SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY STATES.

    (a) In General- No State or political subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which such power has been delegated, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is subsequently used for economic development, if that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which it does so.

    (b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds- A violation of subsection (a) by a State or political subdivision shall render such State or political subdivision ineligible for any Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 fiscal years following a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction that such subsection has been violated, and any Federal agency charged with distributing those funds shall withhold them for such 2-year period, and any such funds distributed to such State or political subdivision shall be returned or reimbursed by such State or political subdivision to the appropriate Federal agency or authority of the Federal Government, or component thereof.

    (c) Opportunity to Cure Violation- A State or political subdivision shall not be ineligible for any Federal economic development funds under subsection (b) if such State or political subdivision returns all real property the taking of which was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have constituted a violation of subsection (a) and replaces any other property destroyed and repairs any other property damaged as a result of such violation.

    SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    The Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government shall not exercise its power of eminent domain to be used for economic development.
  3. TonyM is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    118

    Posted On:
    11/04/2005 1:07pm


     Style: HungGar

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It does at least on the surface look like clearer heads are prevailing.
  4. Memnoch1207 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    137

    Posted On:
    11/29/2005 9:49am


     Style: Boxing, BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter H.
    He probably feels nothing considering that eminent domain wasn't used to build the stadium and that the start of construction occured 5 years before Bush was govenor.
    You're right, Bush wasn't the governor at the time, but it's a well known fact that eminent domain was used to get the land to build the stadium.

    From the Texas Observer - May 9, 1997
    Briefly, here’s what happened on the Ballpark deal. Bush and his partners in the Rangers convinced Arlington officials to:

    • Pass a half cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium;

    Use the government’s powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn’t or didn’t want to buy on the open market;

    • Give the Rangers control over what happens in and around the stadium;

    • Allow the Rangers to buy the stadium (which cost $191 million to construct) for just $60 million;
    Another story from the Texas Observer - January 30, 1998
    In 1993, while walking through the stadium, Bush told the Houston Chronicle, "When all those people in Austin say, 'He ain't never done anything,' well, this is it." But Bush would have never gotten the stadium deal off the ground if the city of Arlington had not agreed to use its power of eminent domain to seize the property that belonged to the Mathes family. And evidence presented in the Mathes lawsuit suggests that the Rangers' owners -- remember that Bush was the managing general partner -- were conspiring to use the city's condemnation powers to obtain the thirteen-acre tract.
    There are numerous other articles that expose eminent domain was used to purchase the land for the stadium.

    Google Results
  5. Peter H. is offline

    Professional Wrestler

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Angelo, TX
    Posts
    2,470

    Posted On:
    11/29/2005 10:35am


     Style: Aikido-Kickboxing-Taichi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Memnoch1207
    You're right, Bush wasn't the governor at the time, but it's a well known fact that eminent domain was used to get the land to build the stadium.

    From the Texas Observer - May 9, 1997


    Another story from the Texas Observer - January 30, 1998


    There are numerous other articles that expose eminent domain was used to purchase the land for the stadium.

    Google Results

    I stand partially corrected.

    But remember:
    Ann Richards was Governor at the time, a Bush hater and political opponent of both Bush's. She signed the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority bill into law. That put emminent domain into play against the Mathes family land, which is adjacent to the property the park is on.

    Saying Bush benefited from the use of eminent domain is different that saying he used emminent domain to build a stadium, he was not in a position to do so, no matter what illuminati theory you subscribe to.
    Last edited by Peter H.; 11/29/2005 10:41am at .
    "Quiet fool before I am kicking the butt!"
    -My three year old trash talking to me

    "Integrity can't be bought or sold---you either have it or you don't."
    -The Honky Tonk Man

    "If you can't be a shining example, at least be a dire warning."
    -My Father to me one day

    "No surprise. Until Aikido sheds its street-brawling, thuggish image, it'll never be mainstream."
    -Don Gwinn
  6. PEtrainer is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    320

    Posted On:
    11/29/2005 10:56am


     Style: wrestling, Bjj, fi ting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter H.
    I stand partially corrected.

    But remember:
    Ann Richards was Governor at the time, a Bush hater and political opponent of both Bush's. She signed the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority bill into law. That put emminent domain into play against the Mathes family land, which is adjacent to the property the park is on.

    Saying Bush benefited from the use of eminent domain is different that saying he used emminent domain to build a stadium, he was not in a position to do so, no matter what illuminati theory you subscribe to.
    In addition, the eminent domain issue in this case was to build a staiduim for public use.

    The case that came before the supreme court delt with removing individuals from family homes, that had been there for generations, that were turned over to developers to build new homes for a higher tax base.
  7. Shadowdh is offline
    Shadowdh's Avatar

    Seeker of Knowledge

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,123

    Posted On:
    11/29/2005 12:33pm

    supporting member
     Style: Chen Style Taijiquan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by PEtrainer
    In addition, the eminent domain issue in this case was to build a staiduim for public use.

    The case that came before the supreme court delt with removing individuals from family homes, that had been there for generations, that were turned over to developers to build new homes for a higher tax base.

    And thats just fucking wrong.... fucking local government... they get the money and then we have to bend over... fucktards the lot of them...
    "If you can get it from my kungfu grip then you can have it... otherwise... step off b*t*h!!!" - Meet the Parents

    "Hetero or Homo I don't see anyone telling him, "NO SIR I WILL NOT TAKE IT IN THE ASS!!!" " - Asia

    "My neighbor has what he calls an "immortality potion" that will let you live forever.
    People have been telling him that it's stupid and will not work... for 1200 years." - Leodom

    Banish Uncertainty
    Affirm Strength
    Hold Resolve
    Expect Death - read in a book

    http://uk.360.yahoo.com/shadowdh
  8. jwinch2 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    408

    Posted On:
    11/29/2005 1:36pm


     Style: Pekiti Tirsia Kali

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Eminent Domain pisses me off...

    Unfortunately, politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle have screwed us all on that more than once... I guess money always trumps ideals huh?
  9. kepetri is offline
    kepetri's Avatar

    Multi Pass

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away
    Posts
    329

    Posted On:
    11/29/2005 1:58pm

    supporting member
     Style: Currently none

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I haven't heard anything more about where this is going in the Senate, but from the following article:

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...oped-headlines

    it looks pretty good. Especially considering the amount of activity at the state level. I was afraid this would just get brushed under the carpet with everything else. Sadly, this is one of the few good recent examples I can remember of democracy at work.
  10. NYCatty is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6

    Posted On:
    11/29/2005 3:03pm


     Style: Hun Ga

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    To answer WarnerJ's query. Congress can pass a law after a SC decsion is published that essentiallty contradicts the opinion. Look up the SC case CITY OF BOERNE, PETITIONER v. P. F. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, AND UNITED STATES 521 U.S. 507. Also look at Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 which states "While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required ... , it may not supersede this Court's decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution."

    If the SC rules on an issue that is "constitutional" its holding stands, if it is not "constutional" congress can pass a new law to nullify the holdiong in the opinion. There is a lot more to this and my explanation isnt the best, but I havent worked in this area for a while. If you read the cases, especially Dickerson, you will get the idea.

    Also, what I refer to as the "silent supremecy clause" is being used here: Congress can regulate state activity through withholding funds. they did it with the drinking age, speed limit, etc.

    Finally, Kelo was in my opinion, one of the worst most dangerous and plain wrong decisions ever decided. Not to piss too many people off, the great liberals on the Court were the majority.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 12 3 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.