(merged) Supreme Court OKs personal property seizures

[panel]

Originally posted by Predicto

Property has the same value it always did - you get paid for it if they take it away.

If a private developer can convince the Falls Church city council of the substantial net benefits of the plan, yes you yould have to move out.

Yes, you would get what your place is worth, fair market value. Courts are not known for being stingy on this.

The Falls Church city council would determine if the redevelopment is warranted.

You take the cash and you buy a new place.

Same as it ever was. People are acting like eminent domain was just created by this ruling.

If they pay "fair market value" why don't the privet companies come up to the people livig on the land they want, and make them a TRUE fair market value?

I'll tell you why, because they'd have to pay MORE! They could could go and buy the land fairly, but if the owner wants more than the dribble being offered they crawl over to the local city hall, make a campain contribution to who ever is in office, and get the government to FORCE you to accept what they say is fair in the hope that they will get more money in taxes.

What if your house is the cheapest in town, and you are forced to sell, and can't afford to stay in town? Then you loose your job, and if that is the best job you can get, your screwed.

you are never offered "fair market" value, because by definition, fair market value is what ever the owner is willing to sell it at, at any point in time.

the Governer isn't playing sim city here, they have no right to control what other people have bought. These idiots in office think they are the know all in the economy, but our whole economy depends on the power of property rights, this is destroying thing that and the ruleing is concreating this step towards communisium.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by panel

If they pay "fair market value" why don't the privet companies come up to the people livig on the land they want, and make them a TRUE fair market value?

I'll tell you why, because they'd have to pay MORE! They could could go and buy the land fairly, but if the owner wants more than the dribble being offered they crawl over to the local city hall, make a campain contribution to who ever is in office, and get the government to FORCE you to accept what they say is fair in the hope that they will get more money in taxes.

What if your house is the cheapest in town, and you are forced to sell, and can't afford to stay in town? Then you loose your job, and if that is the best job you can get, your screwed.

you are never offered "fair market" value, because by definition, fair market value is what ever the owner is willing to sell it at, at any point in time.

Fair market value is determined either in an administrative hearing or through some kind of judicial proceeding usually with the use of Expert Witnesses on both sides. It's not like the company comes to your door and you have to sign on the dotted line. There is due process here as there is whenever people's life, liberty or property rights are implicated.

the Governer isn't playing sim city here, they have no right to control what other people have bought. These idiots in office think they are the know all in the economy, but our whole economy depends on the power of property rights, this is destroying thing that and the ruleing is concreating this step towards communisium.

You might come to a different conclusion if you did a cursory read through of the Constitution, specifically the 5th amendment. The right to eminent domain has been part of our constitution since the Bill of Rights was adopted on September 25, 1789. They've been incorporated to the states and state government bodies since the 1890s. See the specific case and date in an earlier post in this thread.

I'd really suggest you read the court's opinion before coming to your own conclusions. Maybe read up about how emininent domain works too.

Finally, I'm not sure what you're getting at with that last sentence, but I assure you that we're not about to become a communist republic.

[panel]

Originally posted by iheartskins

Realitistically speaking, a plan like this would likely only work where the was a subtantiated pecuniary gain as a result of the condemnation and the town/area required the boost. If the area is prosperous, I doubt that a town or city development company is going to condemn valuable properties. Further things like this don't happen overnight, there are hearings, meetings, elections, etc.

That isn't true, towns are setting definition of "condemed" to take out anything that they want. Good solid homes are being condemed with definitions that call the Governers mansion condemded (but of couse nothing happens to that). Traditionally it has been slums that are being taken, but now ANYTHING is up for grabs. If you grew up in a town that you love and you want to retire there, seizures can make a town a rich only town by forcing anyone that makes a low income out of town.

[redman]

Originally posted by Predicto

You get fair market value, so in theory, you get a place exactly comparable to what you own now, because you have exactly the amount to spend on a house that your current house is worth on the open market.

Predicto, have you ever been directly involved in an eminent domain matter? I have.

You can talk theory all you want but the facts are that property owners get the hose every step of the way.

Did you know that the government can take the property before they've paid you? In CA they simply have to make a deposit reflecting their (not your) "good faith" estimate of its fair market value in order to do that. The property owner gets paid either when the settle, or when the case is tried and judgment is entered. In my experience those "good faith" deposits tend to range from 75% down to as low as 50% or lower of the true fair market value.

Now, you can withdraw the money when it's deposited, but if you do you forfeit your right to challenge the public entity's "right to take" the property. I have a property in Barstow, CA that I'm currently handling where the City is already grading it and preparing to build a road there, and we haven't even presented our challenge against the City's right to take the property to the court.

You can also increase the value of the deposit, but to try to do that the burden is on you to show that, which will require hiring an appraisal expert. In CA, this requires someone with knowledge of the stringent rules governing eminent domain appraisal reports and tends to cost at least $2000-$5000 on the low end, depending upon the type of property involved. But this also means that you're giving away your expert's findings earlier in the litigation than you have to, which is a tactical disadvantage . . . unless you want to pay for another appraisal of your property.

At the end of the day, you're spouting theories and I'm telling you how those theoretical rules in fact play out. This ruling makes a bad situation worse. And again, I say that while my practice stands to gain from this ruling.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by panel

That isn't true, towns are setting definition of "condemed" to take out anything that they want. Good solid homes are being condemed with definitions that call the Governers mansion condemded (but of couse nothing happens to that). Traditionally it has been slums that are being taken, but now ANYTHING is up for grabs. If you grew up in a town that you love and you want to retire there, seizures can make a town a rich only town by forcing anyone that makes a low income out of town.

panel, if you read the case it will illustrate the applicable standard and I assure that it's not "anything they want to do."

Second, this case doesn't change anything or create new law, it only affirms a case that has already been in force for over 50 years.

Third, I guarantee that this would never happen in a economically prosperous area. The only reason that it happened in New London was because of a stagnant and declining economy--as has affected much of New England's traditionally manufacturing-oriented towns. Could the State construct an argument for redeveloping an area that you might not agree with? Sure, but the action would still require administrative and judicial review.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by redman

Did you know that the government can take the property before they've paid you? In CA they simply have to make a deposit reflecting their (not your) "good faith" estimate of its fair market value in order to do that. The property owner gets paid either when the settle, or when the case is tried and judgment is entered. In my experience those "good faith" deposits tend to range from 75% down to as low as 50% or lower of the true fair market value.

redman: Can you sue for a TRO or PRO before they begin the demolition? If so, how often do courts grant them?

CA's takings seem pretty sketchy on the due process front.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by redman

Predicto, have you ever been directly involved in an eminent domain matter? I have.

You can talk theory all you want but the facts are that property owners get the hose every step of the way.

Did you know that the government can take the property before they've paid you? In CA they simply have to make a deposit reflecting their (not your) "good faith" estimate of its fair market value in order to do that. The property owner gets paid either when the settle, or when the case is tried and judgment is entered. In my experience those "good faith" deposits tend to range from 75% down to as low as 50% or lower of the true fair market value.

Now, you can withdraw the money when it's deposited, but if you do you forfeit your right to challenge the public entity's "right to take" the property. I have a property in Barstow, CA that I'm currently handling where the City is already grading it and preparing to build a road there, and we haven't even presented our challenge against the City's right to take the property to the court.

You can also increase the value of the deposit, but to try to do that the burden is on you to show that, which will require hiring an appraisal expert. In CA, this requires someone with knowledge of the stringent rules governing eminent domain appraisal reports and tends to cost at least $2000-$5000 on the low end, depending upon the type of property involved. But this also means that you're giving away your expert's findings earlier in the litigation than you have to, which is a tactical disadvantage . . . unless you want to pay for another appraisal of your property.

At the end of the day, you're spouting theories and I'm telling you how those theoretical rules in fact play out. This ruling makes a bad situation worse. And again, I say that while my practice stands to gain from this ruling.

I know about every one of those things. But this discussion was not about the practical problems of eminent domain actions in general, or how they could be improved to make the process easier, or even about the costs of legal practice in general for that matter. It was about the constitutionality of a government taking of private property for a partially public purpose. So that is what I was focused on.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by panel

If they pay "fair market value" why don't the privet companies come up to the people livig on the land they want, and make them a TRUE fair market value?

All eminent domain actions are necessary because of the holdout problem. Say a dam has to be built in a certain spot where 10 homowners live. You can be sure that one landowner will sit there and say "I love my 1500 sq ranch home so much that you have to pay me 350 million dollars for it," knowing that they can delay the dam forever untill they are paid off. Everyone would do it and the dam would never get built. That is why eminent domain exists.

[redman]

Replies to your counterpoints:

I wrote:

1) the government taking (or more appropriately, forcing the sale of) private property simply because the government can make more money from it is abhorrent to me;

You responded

I'd bet the Gov't would argue that while increased tax revenue is an important purpose (and part of the reasoning for allowing the new "public good" project to move forward), the reasoning for the eminent domain project has much more to do with improving the local economy and the livelihood of local residents than the marginal increase in tax income. Depending upon how cynical one's feeling, the perception of this argument would change a lot. This is to say nothing of the collateral matter of whether Gov't should be an actor in facilitating (or enforcing?) economic development.

Your explanation does nothing to assure me. Where are the limits on this power? The problem is that as the law is now written, all the government has to do to seize land is scream "poverty!", find a way to redevelop land to increase tax (or in this case lease) revenues, and then condemn the land. That's atrocious. And we don't even have to touch the issue of the government's role - if any - in developing the economy.

I wrote:

2) the government controls the eminent domain process and can find if it wants to that damn near anything constitutes "blight". Given that blight can now apply to any situation in which the government seeks to increase its revenue stream, the fox is truly guarding the hen house.

You responded

Indeed, as bearrock suggested earlier in the thread, perhaps eminent domain decisions should be judged with intermediate scrutiny or a modified intermediate scrutiny standard. The Government is like this in nearly everything it regulates, the more power or discretion it can take on to itself, the more it will.

Well, for starters, your suggestion as to how to improve the system implies that you'd prefer to have this governmental power to be reigned in too, which is interesting. But the USSC ruled in favor of the City even though the safeguards you suggest - which are meager at best - are not in place! But you make my point by acknowledging that, "The Government is like this in nearly everything it regulates, the more power or discretion it can take on to itself, the more it will." Look at what I wrote. I spoke of the fox guarding the hen house and you explained just how vicious the fox truly is.

I wrote:

3) the average property owner is totally unfamiliar with eminent domain; the government and developers are pros at it;

You responded

As they say in criminal law and is applicable here, ignorance is no excuse.

That's a trite response that doesn't grasp what we're doing. I agree that on a case-by-case basis, an individual eminent domain defendant shouldn't benefit from more lax or more stringent rules based upon their level of intelligence or knowledge of eminent domain law any more than I should pay less taxes because the tax code is like Greek to me. I don't suppose you go and quote chapter and verse from the tax code every April when you file, right? We're discussing policy, and that policy relates to a fundamental, Constitutional right. You simply have to take these things into account when talking policy.

I wrote:

4) "just compensation" under eminent domain does not recognize subjective value to people. It doesn't matter that your great-great-grandfather built your homestead with his bare hands. It doesn't matter that you, yourself planned to tear down your commercial buildings a year from now and rebuild something new there. You'll only get what the property is worth in an "arms length" transaction on the open market today.

You responded

A subjective test would be totally arbitrary not to mention the evidence concerns that would be implicated by a new subjective standard. How do you value a home that has been in a family for generations? Would there be some kind of premium per generation? There is no test that would pass the "arbitrary and capricious" or "an abuse of discretion" or "unsupported by substantial evidence" (if there is a full hearing) standard--thus FMV is the only way. I understand what you are saying, but there is no way that a court could reasonably value the subjective desire to hold on to real estate.

I agree, but what you are arguing are problems of proof, of evidence. The law doesn't allow compensation for this kind of value because because it doesn't feel confident in the level of proof that can be presented on it. That doesn't mean this value doesn't exist.

[redman]

Originally posted by Predicto

I know about every one of those things. But this discussion was not about the practical problems of eminent domain actions in general, or how they could be improved to make the process easier, or even about the costs of legal practice in general for that matter. It was about the constitutionality of a government taking of private property for a partially public purpose. So that is what I was focused on.

The two are not mutually exclusive, which is where I think your analysis is lacking.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by redman

The two are not mutually exclusive, which is where I think your analysis is lacking.

Sure, they are not mutually exclusive.

But the concerns you expressed above are true in all cases of eminent domain. Indeed, the case you are working on involves taking of a home to build a road, which is a classic case for eminent domain. Maybe eminent domain needs to be streamlined or made more fair, but I do not see how your issues about the process are relevant to the question here: whether government may condemn property for redevelopment where part of the planned use will be for private development.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by jbooma

This is a long process and the COMMUNITY is involved, they just don't show up. When you pass and APR (Area Plan Review) you have to have the consent of the people to do it.

Not exactly. You need local votes according to local process. For example, in Arlington or Fairfax Counties, the Board of Supervisors would need to vote approval. They are certainly likely to at least listen to local concerns as too many bad votes may result in them losing their jobs, but they do not have to have the consent of the people to do it.

For those locals this was done for all the major road projects and all the revitalzing projects going on. The next large ones will be Tysons Corner and Lake Anne in Reston, learn about it.

The big fight right now is actually over the proposed development around the Vienna metro. Fairfax is resisting density around the metro lines tooth and nail. It really is pretty stupid and will only lead to more gridlock, the very problem they are allegedly fighting.

[panel]

Originally posted by iheartskins

panel, if you read the case it will illustrate the applicable standard and I assure that it's not "anything they want to do."

Second, this case doesn't change anything or create new law, it only affirms a case that has already been in force for over 50 years.

Third, I guarantee that this would never happen in a economically prosperous area. The only reason that it happened in New London was because of a stagnant and declining economy--as has affected much of New England's traditionally manufacturing-oriented towns. Could the State construct an argument for redeveloping an area that you might not agree with? Sure, but the action would still require administrative and judicial review.

The ruling makes it legal for the government to take your land, and give it to someone esle, THAT is new, Eminit Doman has been here for 50 year, but in those 50 they'd only do it to build a highway or something (which is still BS, but alot better than the governemt being allowed to redstribute land). This ruling is to see if the government can redistribute land seized, which is a new phonomina.

Who decides what economically prosperous means? The government, A town can be perectly prosperous, but if it can be agrued in any way that it can be MORE prosperous it can be used to steal land.

In Lakewood, Ohio the govenor set the definition of "Blighedted" so that if you did not have ANY of the following, your home is up for grabs: three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an ATTACHED two-car garage, 5000 square foot lot, and central air. The Govener's Mansion doesn't even meet that criteria in Lakewood.

This is what a "blighted" home looks like, better than most homes in this country, but all the government had to do was argue that there is a "Better" use for the land, so a bunch of new condos could go up on land they couldn't afford to buy on a true fair market.

So you disagree and get a "administrative and judicial review", wow, your fate is still out of your hands, and out of the hands of a fair market, and still in the hands of the government.

[iheartskins]

redman, perhaps you misconstrued the preface to my post--not everything I wrote was against your position nor did I intend it to come across that way. Even in those cases where I presented an alternate argument, I wasn't trying to undermine your own just present a different perpective. In several cases, I did agree you.

Originally posted by redman

Your explanation does nothing to assure me. Where are the limits on this power? The problem is that as the law is now written, all the government has to do to seize land is scream "poverty!", find a way to redevelop land to increase tax (or in this case lease) revenues, and then condemn the land. That's atrocious. And we don't even have to touch the issue of the government's role - if any - in developing the economy.

It wasn't so much my explanation as that which probably appeared in the Gov't briefs and those filed amicus on their side of the v.

Well, for starters, your suggestion as to how to improve the system implies that you'd prefer to have this governmental power to be reigned in too, which is interesting. But the USSC ruled in favor of the City even though the safeguards you suggest - which are meager at best - are not in place! But you make my point by acknowledging that, "The Government is like this in nearly everything it regulates, the more power or discretion it can take on to itself, the more it will." Look at what I wrote. I spoke of the fox guarding the hen house and you explained just how vicious the fox truly is.

Here's another place where I agreed with you and wasn't playing the contrarian. Maybe I should have made my intentions clearer in the other post.

That's a trite response that doesn't grasp what we're doing. I agree that on a case-by-case basis, an individual eminent domain defendant shouldn't benefit from more lax or more stringent rules based upon their level of intelligence or knowledge of eminent domain law any more than I should pay less taxes because the tax code is like Greek to me. I don't suppose you go and quote chapter and verse from the tax code every April when you file, right? We're discussing policy, and that policy relates to a fundamental, Constitutional right. You simply have to take these things into account when talking policy.

At some point the burden has to be put on the landowner to understand what rights and responsibilities come with land ownership--that owning a fee simple it isn't an absolute right of dominion and soveriegnty. I don't go through the IRC when I file taxes--I hire an accountant which I would argue is comparable to having a landowner hire a lawyer/real estate agent to apprise him of his property interests (perhaps as part of the closing process).

I agree, but what you are arguing are problems of proof, of evidence. The law doesn't allow compensation for this kind of value because because it doesn't feel confident in the level of proof that can be presented on it. That doesn't mean this value doesn't exist.

I would never contest that personal value doesn't exist--clearly this is why there is such thing as setimentality. I just don't think courts are equipped to integrate such an intagible value into anything, especially something as already difficult to value like real estate. Further, if and when a person were to sell the real estate, a buyer wouldn't pay a premium for the value placed on the fee by the existing owner. Perhaps the owner would hold out, but the owner would still have to resign himself to the fact that the fair market value is what the property is worth in the marketplace.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by redman

You can talk theory all you want but the facts are that property owners get the hose every step of the way.

Did you know that the government can take the property before they've paid you? In CA they simply have to make a deposit reflecting their (not your) "good faith" estimate of its fair market value in order to do that. The property owner gets paid either when the settle, or when the case is tried and judgment is entered. In my experience those "good faith" deposits tend to range from 75% down to as low as 50% or lower of the true fair market value.

Interesting first hand experience red. Here in Virginia, most jurisdictions are generally pretty generous with valuations on takings and timing of payments. Takings have become more of a local issue than they once were especially since VDOT transportation funding has totally evaporated over the last 10-15 years, before then it was mostly state generated takings.

Even with a better landscape here, there are still situations of owners getting completely screwed. It still sounds better here than CA though.

[Guest Gichin13]

Ok, final post from me direct on the topic of the decision.

I can understand the reasoning of the court. I also think it is a bad decision. There should be limits on the state's power to take property. There should be inherent rights in property ownership. This is one where I personally would have ruled the other way based on a very truncated version of the facts of the case that I currently have.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by panel

The ruling makes it legal for the government to take your land, and give it to someone esle, THAT is new, Eminit Doman has been here for 50 year, but in those 50 they'd only do it to build a highway or something (which is still BS, but alot better than the governemt being allowed to redstribute land). This ruling is to see if the government can redistribute land seized, which is a new phonomina.

I'm not convinced that you read the opinion--what you're saying sounds more like you listened to the news or read a senational article. If you read the case, you would have come across this:

In Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area's 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair. Under the plan, the area would be condemned and part of it utilized for the construction of streets, schools, and other public facilities. The remainder of the land would be leased or sold to private parties for the purpose of redevelopment, including the construction of low-cost housing. The owner of a department store located in the area challenged the condemnation, pointing out that his store was not itself blighted and arguing that the creation of a “ better balanced, more attractive community” was not a valid public use. Id., at 31. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Douglas refused to evaluate this claim in isolation, deferring instead to the legislative and agency judgment that the area “must be planned as a whole” for the plan to be successful. Id., at 34. The Court explained that “community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis—lot by lot, building by building.” Id., at 35. The public use underlying the taking was unequivocally affirmed:

We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. . . . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature/b] to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation’s Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.” Id., at 33.

Who decides what economically prosperous means?

The town legislature that you elect.

In Lakewood, Ohio the govenor set the definition of "Blighedted" so that if you did not have ANY of the following, your home is up for grabs: three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an ATTACHED two-car garage, 5000 square foot lot, and central air. The Govener's Mansion doesn't even meet that criteria in Lakewood.

Was this constitutionally upheld?

This is what a "blighted" home looks like, better than most homes in this country, but all the government had to do was argue that there is a "Better" use for the land, so a bunch of new condos could go up on land they couldn't afford to buy on a true fair market.

Again, reading the actual case would have come in handy here. The court did not say that there was a better use for the land. The court, in interpreting an existing standard, held that the use of the land if redeveloped would benefit all of New London. Pfizer wasn't even a part of the suit until much later in the action.

So you disagree and get a "administrative and judicial review", wow, your fate is still out of your hands, and out of the hands of a fair market, and still in the hands of the government.

When is your fate in respect to fundamental constitutional rights ever out of the hands of the government?

[Ghost of]

Hell, maybe this decision will end up being better for the country.

We were in the "too late to vote them out, too soon to shoot the ****s" stage.

We are moving ever closer to armed rebellion. And if you think all the former military, including spec forces, can't make Iraq look like a tea party, you'd be mistaken.

Government in the US is NOTHING like what the vast majority of the Framers intended. Not on the Federal level, not on the state level and not even on the local.

It is tyranny, while we go abroad to fight even worse tyranny we let it continue apace in its growth here.

The Great Reckoning is coming.

And it's threads like this that separate the good guys from the bad--IRRESPECTIVE of party, or left/right.

If that bothers people, I don't actually care. History is not divided between hideous caricatures and noble cartoons, but between good and bad people on both sides, but often doing good or evil things for different reasons. But there IS a right side.

EDIT: Let me also add that things can be done without direct engagement with a military force(or fewer of them) and as our military is not as far gone as other sectors of our society--many would defect or otherwise aid such a movement. Also, let me point out that it would actually be easier to target certain individuals or organizations and there would be no need for large scale conflict in the streets or citizen vs. citizen.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

The Great Reckoning is coming.

Ghost, have you been watching the Matrix on repeat again?

And it's threads like this that separate the good guys from the bad--IRRESPECTIVE of party, or left/right.

If that bothers people, I don't actually care. History is not divided between hideous caricatures and noble cartoons, but between good and bad people on both sides, but often doing good or evil things for different reasons. But there IS a right side.

Am I right to assume that:

a. You are the arbiter/judge of that which is right and wrong, and

b. If there are such sides, then you are on the "right" side?

[Larry]

Juas thought of what may be another way to look at this decision:

What we have here is a case in which the government is using force to deprive someone of property, although in a supposedly fair, impartial way, for the purpose of giving it to another person, and justifying this transfer because they claim that the community as a whole will be better off after the transfer.

The difference between this and welfare is?

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by iheartskins

Ghost, have you been watching the Matrix on repeat again?

Am I right to assume that:

a. You are the arbiter/judge of that which is right and wrong, and

b. If there are such sides, then you are on the "right" side?

Matrix..pah. Give me LotR or SW any day or more aptly--Gladiator.

a) Yes. Each individual, whether it offends the sensibilities of others or not, is the arbiter of what is right. Fortunately, they can test their ideas out on the real world and we can have beliefs that we take as givens so that we may proceed down the line. It's called having beliefs. Some have a demonstrably more positive effect on human beings than others. Some we have to take as a given because if we don't we risk condoning or tolerating the Pol Pots of this world.

Do you think serial murderers are good? Would you want one in your home or on the streets? No--do you believe in justice? Do you believe in liberty? Then you just became an arbiter.

Yes. Why the hell would I be on the wrong side of liberty? WHy would I be on the SIDE of governments and the powerful. Because a government is ostensibly democratic means nothing if the spirit of the society and the governing institutions does not correspond to it.

Here's my question to you: Was the US on the right side during WW II? Or was it just a side? Were the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto on the right side or not? Did the Ukrainians that tried to fight Stalin(and failed) stand up for 'right' or at least 'more right' or 'not evil.'

Are people ever RIGHT to fight? Are they ever RIGHT to stand against powers that seek to abuse and tyrannize them?

When would YOU say the time would be for a given group of people to stand ?

Were not Adams, Paine and Washington arbiters of the right side?

[TheSteve]

I think there are two different arguments being carried on here. One side is of the argument and opinion that the decision was right based on the interpretation of the law that was already in place, and the other side is of the opinion and argument that the decision is wrong, and was wrong because the law goes against the supposed human right to own property. Neither is wrong.

[Larry]

You're correct. One "side" is saying "It's legal". The other is saying "It's immoral".

[Ghost of]

I'm sorry, wasn't Dred Scott's case decided on existing law and interpretation?

Didn't the 2nd go from a universally acknowledged individual right from every contemporary of the Bill of Rights to a 'collective' right in the minds of some deceivers who have chosen to take the first instance of BROKEN PRECEDENT and making it the basis for future BAD LAW?

Separate but equal was supported by previous interpretations too. Slavery. We can go down the list.

Didn't Palpatine say, "I will make it legal?"

Lots of things are legal.

ALTHOUGH, I'd hasten to add that the easily-found meaning of the Constitution would render these decisions ILLEGAL because only a dunce doesn't just go back and read the GD Federalist papers or writings by Madison to discover what was meant by the commerce clause and eminent domain.

[Larry]

I'm always a big believer that "Any action that a President justifies by saying 'Lincoln suspended Habaes Corpus' or 'We interred the Japs in WWII', is a bad action."