Va. Constitutional Amendment

[BlueStreak]

This cycle we also had a constitutional amendment on the ballot that passed with overwhelming support.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...n_1_%282012%29

It is now illegal for the state to seize property under "eminent domain" purely for private use. From now on, such actions can only take place for public use. I voted for this measure and I am proud of my fellow Virginians for doing so as well.

(This came about because of battles with WalMart, principally, but there were other companies involved. I recall there being news of such battles in California and other states.)

Does your state have similar language in it's constitution?

Dave

[Oerets]

I don't think mine does. Should though.

Wounder if it will be tested at the Supreme Court?

Barney

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I don't think mine does. Should though.

Wounder if it will be tested at the Supreme Court?

Barney

I would not expect this SCOTUS to take action that would weaken property rights that a state chooses to recognize. The courts generally defer to the states for the definition of property. And this Court has from time to time elevated property rights in relation to others.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I don't think mine does. Should though.

Wounder if it will be tested at the Supreme Court?

Barney

Oh, I'm sure it will. Nobody threatens to thwart the will of the mighty Walton Dynasty and gets away with it. I'm sure their royal highnesses are throwing infantile temper tantrums and schmoozing Republican suck ups as I type.

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

Interesting. The crazy uncle at the root of the measure is Pfizer. Pfizer and a private consulting group made a mess out of a town about ten years ago.

Here is the wiki on the Supreme Court case, Velo v. City of New London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I would not expect this SCOTUS to take action that would weaken property rights that a state chooses to recognize. The courts generally defer to the states for the definition of property. And this Court has from time to time elevated property rights in relation to others.

Regards,

D-Ray

Hope yo are right on this. I just wounder if this new law had anything to do with the SC decision on "eminent domain" and increased revenue for property taxes back a few?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...a/eminentd.htm





Barney

[BlueStreak]

""And in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, the Court said the government purpose "must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.""

It seems the SCOTUS has been involved as Ebacon has posted. And, it appears that Virginia specifically has been instructed to not leave any loopholes. (Not surprising at all.)

Regards,
Dave

[ebacon]

In Kelo v. City of New London the SCOTUS sided with Pfizer. States are trying to legislate around that ruling so that they can control themselves instead of being controlled by nationwide corporations.

It's an incremental battle. The mathematically minded might frustratingly understand it as being a recursive process.

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, I read that. So, Pfizer went in, bulldozed the place.....then changed their minds.
You gotta love those people......................

Regards,
Dave

[Boreas]

I remember Kelo from the time that it was being heard. If I recall, it broke new ground with regard to the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private person to another private entity. Talk about your "activist judges" and legislating from the bench!

John