Okay, I will repsond to all of this...stuff when I get home from work and can actually spend time on it. But I have to ask - Karen, do you actually read my words in context or just glance over it, assume you know what I’m saying, then respond? I mean I am reading your responses wondering if you just don’t pay attention or if you are being willfully obtuse.

I specifically avoided a direct attack on you personally, don’t know you well enough, unlike Darryl.

Hardy Har Har. Is that supposed to be funny or an indirect personal attack...or both?

you would ask me to ignore countless others who work unbelievably long hours for a sub-living wage living in squallor and agree with you that the system is fair?

Eric catch your breath and think about what you are saying.  This is planet earth you live on. Inequality has existed for EONS and isn’t going anywhere. Not everyone can be pencil thin. Not every woman can bear babies. Not every man can have a big package or a big wallet. Some men slave their whole lives and never get ahead. Some women marry well and never have to work while others must leave their children and work long hours to put food on the table.  Do I expect you to ignore this? NO! But I don’t expect you to think you can solve these issues simply by “caring” and trying to force equality where it will NEVER, EVER be. It’s called LIFE. Didn’t your parents teach you that?  Instead of trying to force equality, inadvertantly creating class jealousy and warfare, why not focus on your own life and your own family?

I sit here pregnant with twins, after already having two beautiful and healthy children.  Do I feel bad for women who can’t conceive? Of course I do, my heart aches for them. But I can not solve their problems. I can’t fix their systems.  All I can do is be the best mom I can be, love my kids and be thankful for what I have.  Agonizing over the unfairness of it all solves nothing.  I can’t carry the weight of the world’s unfairness on my shoulders and neither can you, my friend.

Now maybe you don’t agree that everyone should be allowed to find some happiness in life which is what you are arguing when you argue for the unfairness our system supports, maybe people need to have a value you can quantify before you see them as equals, I don’t have that hang up.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  I never said I don’t think everyone should be allowed to find happiness. I think it’s up to the individual to make their own happiness.  For that barren woman, it might be adopting or finding a surrogate. But it’s HER life to live and her responsibility to find that happiness-not the government or the system’s job or responsibility. For the out of work, down on his luck man, it is HIS responsibility to dust himself off and find gainful employment and do the best he can-even IF it means working long hours for low wages.  It isn’t the system’s responsibility to make sure he has a cushy office job somewhere, straight 8 hours a day and a comfy wage.  Hell, my husband works in a hot factory, long hours, and sometimes we can barely get ahead. Does he gripe that the government is to blame? He gets up every morning and does it to provide for his family and he takes pride in that it is HIS accomplishment.

I am not sure what you mean by the latter part of your statement...value? You think I need to see some sort of value in a person before I see them as an equal?  Did you just pull that one out of thin air?

When you see a homeless person do you see a failure in that person because I just see a failure in the system.

Depends on the person’s situation.  The governor (a fat cat republican) in my state kicked a boat load of mentally ill patients out of state run facilities a few years back. I was disgusted and angry.  I see that as a failure of the system to not protect those that are helpess and indigent. But I don’t see things in black and white like you do-of course there are shades of grey.  There are many, many homeless people who choose to be homeless. They choose drugs over food. They simply do NOT want to work and yes, I see that as a failure on THEIR part. They choose to be losers. And no government intervention can help them, despite all that is out there for the taking: Social Security, Medicaid, welfare, disability, unenjoyment, the list goes on and on.

I guess the difference between you and I is that I advocate personal responsibility and you advocate government’s responsibility to the person. Am I wrong in this assumption?

I find it ironic how this has devolved into a conservative vs liberal arguement, when I don’t think anyone here has argued in favor of the court’s position. 

The conservatives bitch about how liberals worry about the rights of minorities, then turn around and bitch that liberals don’t care about individual rights.

If you want to wear your dissatisfation with the Kelo decision, you can find appropriate apparel here:

http://www.cafepress.com/dissentingop/687920

Here is a quote that is very apropos to the eminent domain decision:

“In the ideal socialist state power will not attract power freaks. People who make decisions will show no slightest bias towards their own interests. There will be no way for a clever man to bend the institutions to serve his own needs. And the rivers will run uphill.” --Robert Heinlein

OK, 2 weeks after the Supreme Court screws Americans. My home town local Government gets the silver bullet to take someone down. Read the article.

“Deputy Town Attorney Ralph Heavner said condemnation could be used becuase the properties being looked at currently weren’t on the market.”

Im 15 and this topic is actually my debate topic for this month and im utterly confused.

if the US is capitalistic and is a free market economy, then techincally isnt the states use of eminent domain to seize private property inorder to benefit other private enterprises unjust and unconstitutional?

That’s a very good question, Sarah, and I wish I had a very good answer for you, but I don’t. The fact is that seeing as the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue in favor of using eminent domain in this fashion pretty much makes it constitutional as deciding what is and isn’t allowed under the constitution is the primary thing the Supreme Court does.

America is, for the most part, captalistic and free market, but not totally. There are several industries and professions that are heavily regulated and/or subsidized for various reasons. I can’t go into too much detail as economic theory is not something I’ve studied at great length, but perhaps one of our regulars can lend a hand.

Sarah,

I would stronly recommend that you read the decision Kelo v. New London.  Here is a link for the actual case where you can read what the Supreme Court Justices actually wrote. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108 It will not be easy reading, but to truly understand the facts of the case and the law involved you need to begin there.

As some background for that case, here is a short summary of the law:

The last clause of the 5th Amendment is called The Takings Clause.  It provides

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

The courts have held that this means that the government can take your property as long as they pay for it.

Typically, this has been used by cities to build things that cities need, parks, airports, interstates, those type of things.  No violation of the 5th Amendment because it was for “public use.”

At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century the courts began interpreting “public use” more broadly.  They needed to do so to assist such companies as railroads and power companies in providing services to the public.  These companies are called common carriers.  The reasons the courts have allowed these transactions is because common carriers hold themselves out to serve the public, so the courts found that the taking would result in the property being held open for use by the public.

Now, in Kelo the court found that turning the land over to a third party served a “public purpose.” The found that economic development was for the good of the public. So, because the economic development was for the good of the public it didn’t violate the 5th Amendment.

I think the Court got it wrong.  You will need to read the case yourself though.  There are good arguements that you can pick up and run with in the main opinion and in the dissent.

I think if you were to ask people on the street “Is it right for the government to take your PRIVATE property and give it to a PRIVATE developer for a mall, even if they pay you for it?” close to 100% of them would say “No!”

The court got this one flat wrong. They may have followed a series of small steps, each of which seemed right, in getting there, but at some point the line was crossed into decidedly unAmerican territory.

I’m betting that if you were to look into properties take by eminent domain, it almost never happens to rich or influential people.

Off the top of my head, here’s a law I’d like to see attached to this whole mess: Anytime private property is taken for a non-public use, the property taxes for the last 50 years must be refunded to the current owner.

If the owner-of-record never really owned it, which is what this decision seems to say, he should get all the taxes back.

As an old hippie, I tend to take the view that, as human beings, we never own land--the land is its own (also, these views have been amplified since I became a Wiccan). We belong to the Earth, not the other way around.

That said, I would be mighty pissed off if the government were to bulldoze my home, be it for a new overpass or what-not. I’m not saying that the government has no right to do this--it clearly has the authority to do so--but it would still be a cause for resentment. Mind you, that’s for public domain.

The ruling on eminent domain (to state it once more) is absurd. It is one thing for the government to snatch land in the name of the greater public good; but for private developers to snatch private property (and I don’t really even believe in that concept, as least as far as land goes), well, that’s not right, man.