eminent domain used to build a ballpark

[son_of_angels]

By the way, Thomas Jefferson's party was actually pretty liberal in many ways compared to the Federalist Party under Alexander Hamilton. They were for big government, yes, but they were also for a more free-market society and supported de-regulization and other such things in industry.

Of course the problem with the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is that they are relative to their respective ideologies. A conservative Communist is going to be for a strict control economy, while a liberal Communist is going to be for something more moderate.

In the same way, a liberal modern American would probably find himself out of place in the liberal vs. conservative debate in early America, not that those terms fully apply to American politics then or now.

I freely admit that, in modern American terminology, I am an Economic Liberal, in support of a tightly regulated, semi-free market economy (with the government exercising certain perogatives over production and service industies), which attempts to service the poor, develop communities, and prevent the wealthy from scandalizing the nation. I am, however, a social conservative, who also believes that the government's chief duty, especially in a Christian state, is the maintenance of good order, morality, and tranquility.

[Aloysius]

private property is exactly the problem with socialism. read rerum novarum by leo xiii.

the right to private property is one major thing that makes us distinct from the beasts. while there must be public property to an extent (roads and national parks)

I want to know where you're getting this 'governments have intrinsic rights over the property of its citizens' because it is NOT Catholic teaching.

I don't know much about the conduct of the papal states, maybe you could enlighten me, but there is nothing that says actions of the papal states couldn't have been wrong.

private property is absolutely supported by Catholic teaching. it cannot be infringed upon at all.

[Aloysius]

liberal economics fails on the Catholic Social Justice principal of subsidarity-- that everything that can be done at the lowest possible level should be left to that lowest possible level. you might think it's nice to have a massive government to help all the poor people, but that's making the little poor people [i]dependent[/i] on that big government. rather, the help for the poor people ought to be offered at the lowest possible and most personal level whereby they are not made dependent.

""Big Business and State Socialism are very much alike, especially Big Business." -G.K. Chesterton

both large government attempted help, and big business exploitation, enslave the working man.

anyway, without things available to be truly privately owned, we've lost something special to our humanity.

". . the socialist theory of collective property must be absolutely repudiated because it is harmful to the very ones whom it seeks to help, contrary to the natural rights of individuals, denaturalizes the functions of the State and disturbs the public peace. Let it therefore be firmly settled that the first foundation to be established for those who sincerely seek the good of the people is the [b][i]inviolability[/b][/i] of private property"

--Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

[Aloysius]

"For, every man has by nature the right to possess property [i]as his own[/i]. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice."

Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

:

Private property is an inviolable right of man. when someone owns property, no force on earth has the right to take it away from him.

[theculturewarrior]

Birds of the sky have nests and foxes have dens but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest His head.

[son_of_angels]

Ah, then how could taxes possibly be within the realm of "Catholic Social Teaching." Yet I guarrantee if you went to Rome and asked if it was sinful for governments to demand taxes, and to take your stuff in order to collect when you disobeyed, most would say it is not intrinsically immoral.

The government, if it is allowed to tax, is allowed to deprive its people of property for the maintenance of the common good and for the defense of the State. It should not, however, do so out of the covetousness which undergirds socialism, namely, that a person less wealthy has a right to covet those who are wealthy, or that a person may be deprived the right to a free determination over those properties to which he is entitled, and as far as those entitlements grant him the ability to fulfill his function as a human being. However, whatever the government renders you, it seems to me that it has the just right to demand it back, especially if you claim to be a participant in that government.

Edited October 9, 2005 by son_of_angels

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 8 2005, 02:48 PM']PLEASE....

This has nothing to do with liberalism or anything else.  If anything it is conservativism, dealing out prizes to large companies at the little guys expense.  NEVERTHELESS, any government, by its very nature and constitution, has the right to demand the property of its citizens for the good of the people as a whole.  You don't like it, get a new government or elect somebody different.  This is the nature of kingdoms, democracies, republics, or oligarchies alike.
[right][snapback]750660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[b]
eminent domain[/b]
the new ruling passed June of this year by the liberal justices of the US Supremem court - on the basis that increased tax revenue can be a basis for property seisure, for the good of the community (smells like communism?)
among other things...
[quote][font="Courier"]"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects[/font].[/quote] [url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html"]article[/url]
[quote][font="Courier"]In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for [i]abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights[/i] and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."[/font][/quote]

this IS liberalism at its worse, and it is VERY REAL and VERY LEGAL in the USA today

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote][b][u]Florida city considers eminent domain[/u][/b]    October 3, 2005
[font="Courier"]Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
    "This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.
    He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."
    Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. [i]That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.[/i] [/font][/quote]
[url="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm"]article[/url]
[quote][font="Courier"]"More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners. [/font][/quote]

[philothea]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Oct 8 2005, 04:01 PM']I knew someone would say this. [right][snapback]750735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I try not to disappoint.

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Oct 8 2005, 04:01 PM']Do not get confused with political parties and ideologies. Though the Republican Party leans to the right in some ways, in no way can it be considered as strictly conservative or comapred to Jefferson's vision of an Agrarian society.
[right][snapback]750735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh good, we're agreeing!

[Jaime]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Oct 8 2005, 03:41 PM']Are you serious? If anything, conservatives have historically been shown to support small business, not big business. A prime example would be Thomas Jefferson's desire that America remain a traditional, bureaucratic-free, family farming,  Agrarian society throughout the test of time. President Jefferson embodied the very essence of conservatism.
[right][snapback]750725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If this is the most recent example that can be found, the argument is a bit weak.


But then again, I'm all in favor of eminent domain being used for ballparks.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Oct 9 2005, 01:27 AM']Ah, then how could taxes possibly be within the realm of "Catholic Social Teaching."  Yet I guarrantee if you went to Rome and asked if it was sinful for governments to demand taxes, and to take your stuff in order to collect when you disobeyed, most would say it is not intrinsically immoral. 

The government, if it is allowed to tax, is allowed to deprive its people of property for the maintenance of the common good and for the defense of the State.  It should not, however, do so out of the covetousness which undergirds socialism, namely, that a person less wealthy has a right to covet those who are wealthy, or that a person may be deprived the right to a free determination over those properties to which he is entitled, and as far as those entitlements grant him the ability to fulfill his function as a human being.  However, whatever the government renders you, it seems to me that it has the just right to demand it back, especially if you claim to be a participant in that government.
[right][snapback]751413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
the government has the right to tax upon transactions that occur in the public domain. it is unjust to tax upon material possessions (i.e. property tax) because that becomes a continual fee (read: rent) paid to the government.

the only just taxes are those that are entered into voluntarily, by dealing with society. sales tax, for instance, is just. you choose to buy that, you are utilizing your wealth in the public sector and the government is responsible for that public sector. there are many other examples of good taxes. property tax forces you to pay a continual fee on something that you supposedly own, which is basically like a rent paid to the governmen that thus inhibits your right to private property.

produce and transactions are justly taxed to keep a government in place to watch over the things of the public sector. those peices of property in the private sector may not be violated by a governmnet, however. that's what Leo XIII was saying.

the government doesn't give you property, unless it's a socialist government. property is in the private sector, and people have an inviolable right to having property in the private sector free from government control or interference. they choose (healthily of course) to use it in the society, thus placing it in the public sector where the government may claim it as payment for the services it renders to the public sector.

[Socrates]

People's property rights should be always be respected. It can be endlessly argued as to what constitutes "adequate" reasons or what is the "common good." If "eminent domain" is exercised in this way, these terms will ultimately mean whatever the courts or the govenment wan them to mean.

The only exception I would make to this is a true life-and death need. Economic gain is never reason to trample property rights.
And Aloysius is right. Awarding big business over property rights cannot be considered "conservative" in any meaningful sense of the term.

[journeyman]

In the feudal historical context mentioned earlier in the thread, the lesser noble ("landowner") didn't really own the land . . . a feudal tenure was a present possessory interest, predicated on payment of rent to . . . . the king . . . .

The Connecticut case decided by the US Supreme Court was on the fringe of the definition of "public interest." There is no question that land can be taken for military bases and public schools regardless of the owner's wishes. There is little question that land which has been allowed to languish to the point that it is "blighted" may be taken. Connecticut defined "public interest" by statute (the legislature, the ones elected by the people at large, defined the term to include aggregating parcels of land for economic development) . . .

facing a "legislative" definition at the state level, and compliance with all the procedural safeguards (which may not have been many) in the state statute, the federal court had little choice but to rule in favor of the taking . . .

to paraphrase Bismark, those who love sausage and law should not watch either being made

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 9 2005, 10:40 AM']If this is the most recent example that can be found, the argument is a bit weak. 
But then again, I'm all in favor of eminent domain being used for ballparks.
[right][snapback]751584[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How could a reference to a human who lived 250 years ago weaken my argument? Jefferson was one of our founding fathers. Our country is based off of many of his ideals to this day.

Edited October 10, 2005 by conservativecatholic

[Sojourner]

Just as an FYI, the eminent domain case y'all are referencing is [i]Kelo, et al., vs. New London[/i], and the Supreme Court opinion was handed down June 23. If anyone wants to read it, it's relatively easy to find on the Supreme Court's Web site. It's interesting, from a legal perspective, particularly as it shines light on the relationship between two of the three branches of government -- which is perhaps actually the most significant thing about this case. The decision affirmed the eminent domain practices most states already had in place, although it went a bit farther than many folks are comfortable with. However, it clearly places the burden for determining when eminent domain is appropriate in the hands of the local legislature. In other words, if you don't like it, that's where you should be focusing your efforts -- not on the "liberal judges."

In case anyone's interested in more information, I'll condense a story I wrote on this case ... In this particular case, the city of New London was struggling econonically, had a economic development plan in place and developers who were willing to enact it, and needed to acquire the property in order to get the project off the ground. Nine property owners, including Susette Kelo, refused to turn over their property. None of the properties were blighted -- a traditionally acceptable reason for eminent domain -- they were condemned only because the city wanted to acquire them for economic development purposes.

The nine homeowners sued, saying, among other things, that the taking of their properties would constitute a Fifth Amendment violation. The Fifth Amendment states, in relevant part “... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether taking property for the purpose of economic development does qualify as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment.

In the majority opinion, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court determined that the city would be forbidden from taking land for the benefit of conferring a private benefit on a private party, even with the pretext of a public purpose. However, the court determined that the city’s plan was carefully considered, and there was no evidence of illegitimate motives presented at any level of the proceedings.

The opinion spends quite a bit of time discussing the meaning of “public use.” The definition the court has been working with since the late 1800s has been “public purpose,” and the court has left the determination of what constitutes “public purpose” up to local and state legislatures.

In the Kelo case, the court [b]granted deference to the local legislators[/b] in making a determination about the definition of public purpose and [b]refused to second-guess the city’s economic development plans[/b]. The majority refused to satisfy the petitioners’ request to adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as public use. The majority also rejected the argument that using eminent domain for economic development blurs the boundary between public and private takings. “Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties,” Justice Stevens wrote.

In the minority dissent, written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the four justices indicated agreement with several of the arguments made by the petitioners. “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded – i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process,” Justice O’Connor writes.

She says the majority opinion washes out the distinction between public and private usage of property. Justice O’Connor and the three justices who join her question the majority’s apparently unquestioned deference to the legislature. “An external, judicial check on how the public use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary if this restraint on government power is to have any meaning,” Justice O’Connor wrote.

While she acknowledged that in the past the court has upheld takings for economic benefit, Justice O’Connor said in each of the preceding cases the high court has considered, there have been direct public benefits, although that was not the case here. Justice O’Connor also said the majority’s suggestion that property owners should turn to states for limitations on economic development takings is “an abdication of our responsibility.”

“States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty, but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution (and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them,” she wrote.