A Sane and Moral Choice for Prez

[Aeson]

Personally I found the whole sequence rather enlightening into your thought processes. First welfare gets cut and soon enough were in apocalyptic anarchy thanks to the scourge of the Fountainhead.

You have not once addressed my "thought process". You have taken fragments individually without regard to context or the whole. That is all.

You've agreed with me that the constitution requires that private property can only be acquired at fair market prices and by public institutions only, both of which Kelo contradicts.

I certainly didn't agree with you about the "public institutions" part. You are just lying about that.

And only tentatively agreed with you about "market prices" in the case that you are not using it as something other than "just compensation". You haven't defined what you mean by "market prices" ... and usually you use words in ways that they simply aren't suitable for.

Ergo Kelo is unconstitutional because it doesn't actually follow what the constitution actually says.

Even if I did agree with you without reservations or qualifications, which I haven't, it still wouldn't change the constitutionality. I am not SCOTUS, I don't determine what is constitutional. Neither do you.

[Aeson]

Then no supreme court decision can ever be overturned, which includes Dred Scott.

The constitution explicitly outlines the method for changing what is constitutional ...

[Ben Kenobi]

The constitution explicitly outlines the method for changing what is constitutional ...

Which, presumably includes Oberfell?

[Ben Kenobi]

I certainly didn't agree with you about the "public institutions" part. You are just lying about that.

Interesting. I wouldn't have taken you for a supporter of Kelo and supporting taking people's private property in order to further private gains. You learn something new everyday. I guess it fits with the antipathy to libertarians.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then no supreme court decision can ever be overturned, which includes Dred Scott. I would suggest adopting the more robust judicial philosophy of originalism which states that laws are bound by the actual written text of the constitution, not the whims of 9 justices.

Originalism is hardly robust in a world where the conditions of life, society and commerce are nowhere near the same as 1789. Originalism and the "strict constructionist" labels are arrogant intellectual frauds (which explain their appeal to you) whereby a modern jurist cloaks their personal interpretation with the holy mantle of purportedly describing the Framers' intent. Unless you conduct a ****ing seance with a few history and engineering lessons, getting Madison's take on "reasonable" search involving interception of wireless communication is rather tough. I don't think he considered the subject much.

BTW, Kelo is clearly consitutional (as was Dred Scott based on the applicable law of the time), because SCOTUS adjucitated is so. The approval of a shrill alien is not required. The majority's view was correct, nothing in the just compensation clause states that takings must me made by (or ultimately tranferred to) a public entity - only that the takings must be for public use. The public entity argument is facile - all that would be needed to circumvent would be creation of a public authority which then leases to a private operator. The criteria is public use, not the legal nature of the ultimate owner of real property obtained in the taking.

[Ben Kenobi]

You didn't check very well, unless you're just playing your usual obtuse and childish word games.

I prefer to deal with an actual thesis not a mere assertion.

The first SCOTUS case involving federal eminent domain rights was Kohl v. United States in 1875, and the eminent domain was described as "'appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty." in the SCOTUS opinion in
Boom Co. v. Patterson in 1879.

Which raises the question, If in fact eminent domain per se were in the Constitution, why does it only show up over a century later? It doesn't actually appear in the constitution which leads me to believe that it isn't actually in the constitution.

Check out the just compensation clause at the end of the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Framers recognized the concept of takings for public benefit, the difference is that they imposed the requirement on the United States government to determine and pay just compensation. Prior to that, if the sovereign state wanted your property for public or crown benefit, they just turned your sniveling ass out at the point of a halberd or, by George III's day, a bayonet.

Great, an actual argument. This has already been addressed. You'll have to define eminent domain as to what the constitution actually says, the ability of the federal government (not the states), to acquire private property by paying market prices for the property.

So sorry, whatever your 1913 fetish is, you're as wrong as a plan to open a Hooter's in Mecca.

Given the erroneous belief that roads require income taxation, that is why 1913 becomes relevant.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Which, presumably includes Oberfell?

Good luck finding someone with standing to file a challenge to Obergefell

[Aeson]

Which, presumably includes Oberfell?

I am talking about changing the Constitution through amendment. Oberfell wasn't an amendment, so ... no ... that doesn't include Oberfell.

[Aeson]

Interesting. I wouldn't have taken you for a supporter of Kelo and supporting taking people's private property in order to further private gains. You learn something new everyday. I guess it fits with the antipathy to libertarians.

false dichotomy

[Aeson]

Given the erroneous belief that roads require income taxation, that is why 1913 becomes relevant.

You're the one who brought up income taxes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Originalism is hardly robust in a world where the conditions of life, society and commerce are nowhere near the same as 1789. Originalism and the "strict constructionist" labels are arrogant intellectual frauds (which explain their appeal to you) whereby a modern jurist cloaks their personal interpretation with the holy mantle of purportedly describing the Framers' intent. Unless you conduct a ****ing seance with a few history and engineering lessons, getting Madison's take on "reasonable" search involving interception of wireless communication is rather tough. I don't think he considered the subject much.

Given the ability of the Framers to communicate screeds contrary to the King anonymously, it is not particularly hard to follow why requiring Facebook log ins in order to express oneself in the newspaper would be unconstitutional.

The same regarding the second amendment. One can scarcely fathom how the right to bear arms morphed into the ability of the state to regulate how many clips you can own.

BTW, Kelo is clearly consitutional (as was Dred Scott based on the applicable law of the time), because SCOTUS adjucitated is so.

This is judicial tyranny and contrary to what the constitution actually says. The Constitution is in itself the highest law of the and the rulings of the Supreme Court are suborned to the constitution not the constitution to the court.

The approval of a shrill alien is not required. The majority's view was correct, nothing in the just compensation clause states that takings must me made by (or ultimately tranferred to) a public entity - only that the takings must be for public use. The public entity argument is facile - all that would be needed to circumvent would be creation of a public authority which then leases to a private operator. The criteria is public use, not the legal nature of the ultimate owner of real property obtained in the taking.

There is a reason the constitution states what it does. You would have me believe that the whole thing is an antiquated document unworthy for the enlightened people of 21st century America. And you accuse me of hubris for suggesting that is not so? Liberty is not a foreign concept doomed to represent one generation of the 18th century. I suspect Jefferson would have a few words about that.

[Ben Kenobi]

I am talking about changing the Constitution through amendment. Oberfell wasn't an amendment, so ... no ... that doesn't include Oberfell.

Then Oberfell is wholly unconstitutional. I'm actually thrilled to hear you explain why Dred Scott cannot be constitutional because of the amending formula. It's almost like I wanted you to make that argument.

[Aeson]

Then Oberfell is wholly unconstitutional. I'm actually thrilled to hear you explain why Dred Scott cannot be constitutional because of the amending formula.

You seem to have a problem with timelines. I responded to "was" ... past tense. Just because you edited your post to "is" doesn't change what I was responding to.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I prefer to deal with an actual thesis not a mere assertion.

No, you like to make stuff up when you don't understand the relevant background.

Which raises the question, If in fact eminent domain per se were in the Constitution, why does it only show up over a century later? It doesn't actually appear in the constitution which leads me to believe that it isn't actually in the constitution.

Either because nobody was delusional enough to challenge the inherent sovereign right of eminent domain, or because SCOTUS denied cert for failure to present anything they felt needed to be dispositively adjudicated. 1875 is less than a century, and that's merely the first SCOTUS decision relating to the power, not the first challenge at the District Court level.

As made clear in Boom Co., there is no need for it to be addressed or defined in the Constitution, as it is an inherent aspect of sovereignty. The Framers certainly recognized this - there would be no possible use for a just compensation clause if the power of eminent domain did not already exist.

Great, an actual argument. This has already been addressed. You'll have to define eminent domain as to what the constitution actually says, the ability of the federal government (not the states), to acquire private property by paying market prices for the property.

If it was addressed by you, it was addressed incorrectly, possibly deliberately so. If you just stick to English common law, the sovereign's power of eminent domain predates the Magna Carta. It's actually the private ownership of land by the common rabble which is newer and more novel.
I need not define it. BTW, there's this little thing called the Fourteenth Amendment, which doesn't "enable" eminent domain by state and local governments, as those are inherent powers of the sovereign states within the US. The applicability of the just compensation clause through the Fourteenth Amendment limits the states by requiring just compensation, otherwise, they'd be free to turf you out at bayonet point. "Market prices" is your construct. The term is "just compensation" which may be higher or lower than market price or may be non-monetary.

Given the erroneous belief that roads require income taxation, that is why 1913 becomes relevant.

How a road is paid for is absolutely irrelevant to the authority to take the land upon which the road is built. You've been using the same coloring book for too long.

[Ben Kenobi]

there would be no possible use for a just compensation clause if the power of eminent domain did not already exist

Only if one does not see how the principle is intended to restrain government not expand it.

It's actually the private ownership of land by the common rabble which is newer and more novel

Indeed, one of the reasons I keep stepping in and speaking up for it.

The term is "just compensation" which may be higher or lower than market price or may be non-monetary.

Stripping private property without monetary compensation is tyrannical.

How a road is paid for is absolutely irrelevant to the authority to take the land upon which the road is built. You've been using the same coloring book for too long.

You'll have to take that up with Aeson, when he's finished weatherstripping his bunkers in anticipation of a Libertarian victory.