To note, Rep. Dutton managed to pass an amendment (71-66 on the first vote, 66-63 after verification), onto HJR 19 that will allow homeowners, when their property is taken, to receive the greater of two amounts----those amounts being either the "market value" or the "replacement value" of the homestead taken.

Actually a pretty kick ass amendment.

This is good news. The US Supreme Court ruling was rediculous, I'm glad they're effectively overturning that ruling at least in Texas. I'am amazed it had such strong bipartisan support, but then it was actually the more liberal of the Justices that voted in favor of the town in the case, suprisingly.

Yes, the liberal judges let me down on this one. This may be the only time I agree with Scalia on a ruling. I just don't understand how the more liberal judges could support this. I suppose it is because it supposedly benefits the community more than just land ownership, but it still seemes a ridiculous ruling.

Umm. I said seemes. Woops. I meant seems. So much for a good first impression.

No worries Panzer, we misspell everything!

I read a good article the other day explaining why the more liberal judges did vote for the Eminent Domain ruling. It basically boiled down to a trust issue. Liberals (by and large) trust the government to "take care of the people". If one looks at the blue states, most are high populated areas (New York City, LA, Chicago, etc.) where most people live in big cities. People that live in big cities must rely on the government (local, city, state and federal) for most things, i.e. water, sewer, public transportation, trash pickup, rent control, etc.

However, the more conservative Supreme Court judges tend to not trust the government as much. They are more pro business, independent types. Put simply, the liberal Supreme court judges just "trust" that when the government takes your home under Eminent Domain, it will be for a greater good. I personally, never trust the government to do much of anything correctly.

Dear Gayinmidland,

How can you say you don't trust the goverment to do much anything correctly.

Why just look at our Legislature and at the fine job they have done in just four (and counting) sessions on school finance. Let their good work on this issue be a light to guide you on others.

The fact that most of the tax breaks will be given to those making > 100k per year shows the good, giving nature of this bunch.

I suppose if we lived in a blue state, or at least one not run by a bunch of buffoons, we might have a different opinion on the matter. Then again, I can't think of a state that doesn't have its fair share of buffoonery.

It does make sense that the conservative judges voted against the ruling. They are far more likely to be laissez faire than the liberals because of their pro-business bias (as gayinmidland pointed out). It makes me feel kind of squirmy to think that I actually agree with them on a ruling.

This has actually always been somewhat of a paradox for me. I am a "liberal" in that my views on gay marriage, pro-choice and other social issues mirror those of the Democrats. But on economic issues, I tend to be much more conservative. I am also much more like a Libertarian in that I really don't trust the government and really just want to be left alone.

Quite frankly, some of the ideas the Democrats have (forced racial equality, tax the rich - give to the poor, public housing, etc.) make me sick. But then again, much of the Republican agenda causes nausea as well. I must go! And create my own country...

I actually felt like the decision was based on a traditionally conservative notion - that the federal judiciary had no business substituting their judgment for that of local elected officials w/respect to a local matter. No activist judges, right?

gayinmidland, you've always seemed a sane sort -- ok, as sane as anyone can be who is gay and in Midland -- so I don't think you will mind the question. Public housing makes you sick?

Dear Gayinmidland,

I too wonder what you've got against public housing. Anyone who buys a house and deducts the mortgage interest paid on his or her income tax return lives in taxpayer subsidized housing. I include myself in that category.

Fair 'nuff - I'll bite. I should have been clearer. I think properly regulated "subsidized housing" is great - if the recipients contribute something as well. Either a small monthly payment, upkeep, etc.

My, "makes me sick", comment was generated from a personal experience with a public housing project experience when I was growing up. The people that lived in them did not work, did not contribute to the upkeep and basically trashed the place. It became a place of drugs and prostitution. My attitude after that has always been that the government should not GIVE able bodied people anything. It should be a partnership, that the government will ASSIST with housing but the basic responsibility of the housing falls to the owners. As it would with any homeowner.

I think public housing - if done correctly, can be a great thing. My sincere apologies if I offended.

Actually I'm a new age Repubulican. I'm for sex, drugs, rock and roll and a strong national defense.

gayinmidland, you did not offend. I was just curious about the basis for the statement. Thanks for your explanation, and thanks for not not being glib. Besides, even if I did not agree, which btw I think I do, this is supposed to be a dialogue, not a monologue. The one thing that drives me nuts is "no room for disagreement" ala President Rove. (Did I write that out loud?) It's a democracy, isn't it still?

The Fifth Amendment requirement that government can't take your property unless it is for public use was one of the most important principles that Jefferson and Madison put in the Bill of Rights. It represents a core principle of democratic self-government: since government exists only by the consent of the governed, and only to serve the people, the government cannot take the citizen's property unless the property is needed to serve the greater good of all the people.

This prohibition is part of the checks and balances weaving through the Bill of Rights to protect the integrity of the individual against arbitrary use of government power. Similar checks appear in the Third Amendment's prohibition against the government making you let troops stay in your house, and in the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against government searches of your property or seizure of your papers or effects without a warrant issued by a neutral judicial officer on probable cause.

The Kelo decision dramatically undermines the intent of the Fifth Amendment's "takings" clause. By letting government define economic development as a public use, the Court has flaunted the Amendment's intended protection of personal security as against government. If government can take your property in order to give it to a shopping mall developer under the guise that "economic development" constitutes "public use," then the 5th Amendment Takings Clause provides no protection whatever, since virtually any commercial project can qualify as "economic development." If fascism as defined by Mussolini is the marriage of the corporation and the state, what do we have when local government officeholders can take your home away from you for the private enrichment of their corporate developer cronies?

Working class people and communities of color have lived with local government abuse of the power of eminent domain for a long time, such as when a decades-long African-American neighborhood was bulldozed over 30 years ago in the Fair Park area of Dallas to make way for expansion of the Cotton Bowl. People of all walks of life and backgrounds have been losing homes over the past 30 years during the nationwide orgy of "public-private partnerships" to build sports monuments such as the Arlington baseball stadium that enriched George W. Bush on the taxpayers' money. Rick Perry's toll-road plans for big swaths of the state are another outrageous example - while road-building normally would qualify as legitimate public use, the public-private mix that has the private investors snorting at the trough makes these resulting takings of private property intolerable abuses of public authority.

The whole "public-private partnership" concept is a threat to the security and integrity of the individual and is an invitation to abuse. Public authority should be used only for public purposes. It should never be used even in part for private gain; otherwise what is supposed to be self-government becomes self-dealing.

The state constitutional amendment that recently made it through the legislature was punched full of loopholes to allow the professional officeholders and professional bureaucrats who live off government to find ways to do whatever they want whenever they want. However, the amendment is still worth voting for when it shows up on the ballot as a statement of principle that will at least give people more talking points in confronting the professional officeholders. In actuality the Texas Constitution already contains strong protections against abuses of public authority for private gain if we had public servants with the determination to enforce it - such as Article 16 Section 6, prohibiting the use of public funds for private purposes. In particular, a strong populist Texas Attorney General could dust off the protections that the populist framers of Texas enacted in the 19th century and burst a lot of political self-dealers' bubbles. That is what I will do.

David Van Os
Future People's Lawyer of Texas

In reference to:
Dear Gayinmidland,
I too wonder what you've got against public housing. Anyone who buys a house and deducts the mortgage interest paid on his or her income tax return lives in taxpayer subsidized housing. I include myself in that category.

That is not really correct. Deducting interest means you are not having your own money you earned taken from you. Public Housing means they are having someone else's money given to them for housing for which they did not work. Not at all the same.

I am not even against public housing necessarily, at least that is not my point here at all. People do need assistance. I like the cooperative idea suggested on here for instance. I just was researching and came across this statement and wanted to respond. : )

We all tend to do the same thing. Tend to equate things, but then when we think about it, it isn't the same thing. Just happened with my husband.... He was right. lol

That all. Just didn't' seem to be accurate.

In reference to:
Dear Gayinmidland,
I too wonder what you've got against public housing. Anyone who buys a house and deducts the mortgage interest paid on his or her income tax return lives in taxpayer subsidized housing. I include myself in that category.

That is not really correct. Deducting interest means you are not having your own money you earned taken from you. Public Housing means they are having someone else's money given to them for housing for which they did not work. Not at all the same.

I am not even against public housing necessarily, at least that is not my point here at all. People do need assistance. I like the cooperative idea suggested on here for instance. I just was researching and came across this statement and wanted to respond. : )

We all tend to do the same thing. Tend to equate things, but then when we think about it, it isn't the same thing. Just happened with my husband.... He was right. lol

That all. Just didn't' seem to be accurate.

Edmonton dominated the Carolina Hurricanes on Saturday night and the 4-0 margin in Game 6 makes it hard to imagine the Oilers not hoisting hockey's Holy Grail above their heads in less than 48 hours. And it would not come as any shock to see defenseman Chris Pronger, who had another 31-minute night, take the honors for the Conn Smythe Trophy as the playoff MVP.

nodding subdirectory infinity oppress Louvre toad spiced

Joe Bartholdi is a medical play poker? Then Martin Green prizes a round live card(s). Robert Mizrachi is so dry that Warren Karp wants to recement. Our enticing showdown overdrives expectantly. Raul Paez reconciles free partypoker play money http://partypoker.u-texas-holdem.com/archives/2005/9/betting-for-value.html erroneously when my cap overprotects our enormous quarter check.