Dan wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
nk.net...
Dan wrote:

Supreme Court decision WRT taking of private property

Well, I suspected something immediately when I read Justice Thomas
was in opposition. Went back to the original doc, and sure enough, the
file-clerk-in-a-dress was wrong, yet again.

The Constitution clearly says the government can take any property they
want, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE,

No, *not* for whatever purpose: for public *use*:

...nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.


Public USE, dummy, *not* public purpose.

Public use: sell at a discount to a developer in order to generate:

tax money
economic growth (tax money included)
lower crime

No. That's the whole issue. Public use means a public - that is,
state agency - ownership and operation.



The development was to be a mall (with private businesses but
standard public access laws applying) replacing supposedly
"blighted" areas of the city.

Of course, if you argue that this is not public use, then the
government agency is off the hook WRT just compensation,
isn't it! Because, if it is not public use, all that is required of
the government is due process, which there definitely was.
How is this substantially different from a person SUSPECTED
of a crime having his assets removed BEFORE A TRIAL
because he might use them in his self-defense? Damnedest
thing, precedence.

Just because I don't LIKE it doesn't mean it is not legal.

But then, holding someone (U.S. citizens, in fact) without
bail, without counsel, and without trial might just be going
across the Constitutional line.


Dan