RateItAll.com - The Opinion Network
1) Find and share opinions on anything; 2) Publish your own ratings list and share it on any site; 3) Make a little money

Actions

Ratings Breakdown

  • 5

Hottest Topics

Hottest Weblists

Related Websites

KairhoGet Rating Widget!

Overall Rating: 5.00 based on 5 ratings
2005 US Supreme Court decision: Kelo v City of New London (Add picture)



This item was submitted by Kairho (11) on 10/22/2005 11:01:51 AM.

Your rating:     (Roll over your star rating, then click) (5=Agree 100%)
Notify me by email when someone comments on my review
Notify me by email when someone reviews this item
 

Reviews for Kairho  1-5 OF 5

Browse next item:
LouieThe20th		 Sort items by:
REVIEWERRATING & REVIEW
kamylienne (78)
10/22/2005
Regarding the Kelo vs. New London case: Citizens are taking action against this outrage. Outside of the proposed "Lost Liberty Hotel" idea, it seems that the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers are also trying to take the homes of two of the Justices' houses to make a "Constitution Park". These proposed projects aren't going to really solve anything. But it at least brings continuing publicity of the issue, which is simply not going to go away. http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html http://www.cnht.org/

  (4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
GenghisTheHun (171)
10/22/2005
I agree with the postings, but the solution is simple. Go to your state legislators or if you are in a home rule city, the city council and force changes in the local laws so these takings are limited. All the Supreme Court stated was that no Federal Constitutional impediment stood in the way of the localities. We have lots of remedies locally.

  (3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Jed1000 (72)
10/22/2005
Whether I agree with Supreme Court rulings or not, at the very least I usually understand the arguments. This one, however, left me scratching my head. It just seems so, well... un-American; not reasonable, not fair, and not logical. It makes "...all men are created equal..." a patently false statement. Apparently the high court feels that some developers are "more equal" than Joe Homeowner. Yes, I know they used some sort of argument like "for the betterment of the commumity as a whole." But who's to say what's better in any given situation? And why should the government even get to decide? It seems to me that both a liberal and a conservative reading of the law would have made this an obvious choice in favor of the individual's right to "the pursuit of happiness" on his own property. I just don't get it.

  (7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
louiethe20th (74)
10/22/2005
What I find so hillarious is that this ridiculous ruling might directly affect the Honorable, and I use that loosley, David Souter. Serves him right I say for supporting such a mindless ruling. I too applaud those who are fighting this ruling.

  (6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Kairho (11)
10/22/2005
What gets my dander up is the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in "Kelo v City of New London." From the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed." Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html I simply cannot understand how the government can take the principle of redistribution of wealth (eg tax the rich to fund welfare programs) and extend it to real property, effectively shattering dreams and accomplishments and possibly putting people out on the street. Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness? If the confiscation were for public facilities or purposes, that's one thing. But to give the property to other private interests? Moreover, isn't this also in violation of unreasonable search and seizure? Watch out, America. If someone with bucks and connections decides they like your private property, they can simply pay off a selectman or two and take it. This ruling is simply inconscionable and I applaud those state legislatures which are creating new laws to prohibit the practice.

  (11 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
1-5 OF 5View All
Add a rating badge for Kairho to your site!
Add a rating badge to your site!
test