Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS Deals Another Blow To The Fifth Amendment

16 views
Skip to first unread message

TRUMP!

unread,
Jun 24, 2017, 8:36:06 PM6/24/17
to
A number of sane people around the commentariat have been up in
arms over the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court
in Murr v. Wisconsin. And with very, very good reason. We’ve
dealt with this case here before as it’s played out through the
lower courts, but as a refresher it deals with the situation
encountered by Donna Murr and her siblings in Wisconsin. The
family owned two small parcels of land along the St. Croix
River. They had a cabin on one of the lots and the adjoining
property was left vacant as an investment. But when they
attempted to finally sell the vacant lot in 2004 they learned
that the state had changed the rules on them, making it
impossible to sell the land to anyone other than the county
unless they combined the properties and relinquished the entire
package.

SEE ALSO: Remember that California single payer plan? Yeah…
never mind.

The property in question had been valued at $400K. The county –
the only entity legally entitled to buy it – offered them $40K.

Because the state, through changes in laws which did not apply
when the family acquired the land, had completely gutted its
worth, the Murr family sued to be properly compensated under the
Takings Clause. With this week’s decision, those hopes are
dashed. Eric Boehm at Reason explains what this is doing to the
rights of property owners.

When governments issue regulations that undermine the value of
property, bureaucrats don’t necessarily have to compensate
property holders, the Supreme Court ruled Friday…

The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5
acres of land in Wisconsin.

Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf
of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which
publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did
not have a direct interest in the Murrs’ ability to sell their
vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications
for conflicts over federal lands.

Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of
water near areas owned by the federal government (military
bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are
allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the
federal government could impose severe restrictions on state
land and wouldn’t have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a
professor of law at George Mason University who authored the
amicus brief on behalf of those western states.

What we are seeing here is a continuation of what I still
maintain is possible the worst ruling from the Supreme Court in
the history of the nation, Kelo v. City of New London. That was
the dark day when the Supremes ruled that the idea of “public
use” in the Takings Clause could be reinterpreted into a Reverse
Robin Hood scenario by defining it as the far more ambiguous
“public benefit.” When that case was decided in 2005 the
principal dissent was written by O’Connor, but in a separate
dissent, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the following:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s
interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe
from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

This ruling is yet another weakening of the Takings Clause. And
the reason I say this is a continuation of Kelo is that you need
only look at who is voting on these rulings. In Kelo, the 5-4
decision was delivered by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer
with the tie-breaking vote cast by Kennedy. Now, In Murr, the 5-
3 decision came from Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan, (who replaced
Stevens under Obama) and Sotomayor (who replaced Souter under
Obama) with both the tie-breaking decision and the written
opinion coming once again from Kennedy. Anyone seeing a pattern
here?

It was 5-3 because Gorsuch wasn’t involved with the original
hearing and didn’t vote. But even if he had, the Fifth Amendment
still would have lost 5-4 yet again. It’s not enough just to
keep hold of the seat that Justice Scalia occupied.

Kennedy is unreliable in too many instances when given a choice
between more power for the government over the individual or
less. The other four liberals are lost causes, apparently never
having seen a case of bigger government which they couldn’t
celebrate. We need a real majority on the Supreme Court with
conservative, small government principles in their hearts or
these erosions of fundamental rights will continue.

TAGS:FIFTH AMENDMENTKELOREASONSCOTUSTAKINGS CLAUSEWISCONSIN
SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/24/murr-v-wisconsin-scotus-
deals-another-blow-fifth-amendment/

David Hartung

unread,
Jun 25, 2017, 9:40:32 AM6/25/17
to
On 06/24/2017 06:34 PM, TRUMP! wrote:

> It was 5-3 because Gorsuch wasn’t involved with the original
> hearing and didn’t vote. But even if he had, the Fifth Amendment
> still would have lost 5-4 yet again. It’s not enough just to
> keep hold of the seat that Justice Scalia occupied.
>
> Kennedy is unreliable in too many instances when given a choice
> between more power for the government over the individual or
> less. The other four liberals are lost causes, apparently never
> having seen a case of bigger government which they couldn’t
> celebrate. We need a real majority on the Supreme Court with
> conservative, small government principles in their hearts or
> these erosions of fundamental rights will continue.
>
> TAGS:FIFTH AMENDMENTKELOREASONSCOTUSTAKINGS CLAUSEWISCONSIN
> SHARE ON FACEBOOK SHARE ON TWITTER
>
> http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/24/murr-v-wisconsin-scotus-
> deals-another-blow-fifth-amendment/

The unfortunate reality is that five of the nine justices of the Supreme
Court believe that the words of the Constitution change in meaning,
depending upon what they wish those words to say.

#BeamMeUpScotty

unread,
Jun 25, 2017, 1:31:23 PM6/25/17
to
To take the property required imminent domain....

To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the State
confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair value.

Another scam.

They may have invested in that land to sell and send a kid to
college..... Or for their retirement, can the Government raid your
retirement fund the way they just raided this families investment? Can
the State pass a law to make your retirement fund almost worthless and
only be sold to the Government?

--
That's Karma

Rudy Canoza

unread,
Jun 25, 2017, 2:49:09 PM6/25/17
to
That's wrong, Pastor Gantry. Four of the nine believe the words mean
something different from what you believe them to mean, and on occasion
a fifth justice sides with them.

You do not know what the words of the Constitution mean.

jim

unread,
Jun 25, 2017, 4:14:31 PM6/25/17
to
#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> To take the property required imminent domain....
>
> To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the State
> confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair value.

If BMUS writes it you know its a lie.

First of all, the state isn't involved other than
providing the legal system in which a local govt
can operate and disputes can be resolved.

Second, the local govt is not violating the Constitution
by having zoning laws and restrictions on development and land
use. Do you think that if farmer Jones decides that 10 acres of
his land would be worth $10 million if the county would allow
it to be zoned for a casino, but since the county zoning laws
only allows it to be used for agriculture that therefore the county
owes him the difference?

Third, They can sell the property for whatever the market
will pay. They just aren't allowed to subdivide and sell
off parcels. They aren't being treated any different
than other similar land owners.


> They may have invested in that land to sell and send a kid to
> college.....

Or maybe you are lying and they inherited the
property from their parents.


#BeamMeUpScotty

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 12:40:21 PM6/26/17
to
On 06/25/2017 04:14 PM, jim wrote:
> #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> To take the property required imminent domain....
>>
>> To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the State
>> confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair value.
>
> If BMUS writes it you know its a lie.
>
> First of all, the state isn't involved other than
> providing the legal system in which a local govt
> can operate and disputes can be resolved.

State constitutions and laws and court decisions can't violate the U.S.
constitution.

> Second, the local govt is not violating the Constitution
> by having zoning laws and restrictions on development and land
> use.

They do violate the constitution with their local land use laws all the
time and so do the HOA's that try to tell you what you can do in your
own house and yard.

The courts are filled with cases.

If that restriction violated the U.S. constitutional property rights of
the owners, then it's a problem.

You (Jim) get spit into my liars filter and so I always know when a liar
is posting, your name is linked to it.

All I have to do then is dig deep enough to find your lies.


--
That's Karma

jim

unread,
Jun 26, 2017, 10:26:54 PM6/26/17
to
#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 06/25/2017 04:14 PM, jim wrote:
>> >#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> >>To take the property required imminent domain....
>>> >>
>>> >>To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the State
>>> >>confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair value.
>> >
>> >If BMUS writes it you know its a lie.
>> >
>> >First of all, the state isn't involved other than
>> >providing the legal system in which a local govt
>> >can operate and disputes can be resolved.

> State constitutions and laws and court decisions can't violate the U.S.
> constitution.
>

The Constitution says clearly that govts are allowed
to deprive people of life, liberty and property
as long as its done with due process.

There is no evidence of lack of due process in
this case. The ordinance was written decades before
they owned the property.


>> >Second, the local govt is not violating the Constitution
>> >by having zoning laws and restrictions on development and land
>> >use.

> They do violate the constitution with their local land use laws all the
> time

Do ya think the Federal govt should send in the Federal
marshals and tell the locals how to run their affairs?

#BeamMeUpScotty

unread,
Jun 29, 2017, 9:42:06 AM6/29/17
to
On 06/26/2017 10:26 PM, jim wrote:
> #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 06/25/2017 04:14 PM, jim wrote:
>>> >#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> >>To take the property required imminent domain....
>>>> >>
>>>> >>To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the
>>>> State
>>>> >>confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair
>>>> value.
>>> >
>>> >If BMUS writes it you know its a lie.
>>> >
>>> >First of all, the state isn't involved other than
>>> >providing the legal system in which a local govt
>>> >can operate and disputes can be resolved.
>
>> State constitutions and laws and court decisions can't violate the U.S.
>> constitution.
>>
>
> The Constitution says clearly that govts are allowed
> to deprive people of life, liberty and property
> as long as its done with due process.

And you deleted the text that explained the fact that the State didn't
use due process..... they stole the property without using "imminent
domain".

They can't simply steal it when the Constitution has the way to do
something like that spelled out as the constitutional way to do it.

Like Article 5 tells the government how it will create Amendments...
they can't just bypass that by writing laws to change the constitution.

In the case of stealing property, imminent domain "is" the due process.

And imminent domain says that they pay fair market value. if their law
said the owner can't sell to anyone else then it had to say that the
sale to the government was to be done "within the imminent domain legal
structure" then I'd have no quibble with it.

As it is the County and State colluded to steal from a U.S. citizen,
because eminent domain requires fair market values.

Funny that a Liberal wants minimum wage and yet you can't see the value
of a fair market value. Proof that Liberals don't understand capitalism.

When government sets a minimum wage for government workers I have no
issues with it, but since the constitution doesn't allow for a Nation
wide minimum wage I see it as over reaching their delegated power when
they try to set a national minimum wage. But you want to ignore a
minimum fair market value for imminent domain when it's mandated in the
constitution. You want to let the government do what they have no
delegated power to do "because it violates property rights".

So once again NATIONALIZING private property into PUBLIC PROPERTY with
no delegated power to do it you want the State Government to steal from
citizens.

--
That's Karma

jim

unread,
Jun 29, 2017, 4:42:30 PM6/29/17
to
#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 06/26/2017 10:26 PM, jim wrote:
>> >#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> >>On 06/25/2017 04:14 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> >>> >#BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>> >>To take the property required imminent domain....
>>>>>>> >>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>>> >>To take the value of it, is to take the property. Either way the
>>>>> >>>>State
>>>>>>> >>>> >>confiscated $360,000 worth of property and/or avoided paying fair
>>>>> >>>>value.
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >If BMUS writes it you know its a lie.
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >First of all, the state isn't involved other than
>>>>> >>> >providing the legal system in which a local govt
>>>>> >>> >can operate and disputes can be resolved.
>> >
>>> >>State constitutions and laws and court decisions can't violate the U.S.
>>> >>constitution.
>>> >>
>> >
>> >The Constitution says clearly that govts are allowed
>> >to deprive people of life, liberty and property
>> >as long as its done with due process.

> And you deleted the text that explained the fact that the State didn't
> use due process..... they stole the property without using "imminent
> domain".

You don't explain things you just tell lies.

You certainly can't explain that the state stole it since
the property still belongs to the plauntiffs and the state
has never shown the slightest interest in taking the property.

> They can't simply steal it when the Constitution has the way to do
> something like that spelled out as the constitutional way to do it.

Where is the process spelled out in the Constitution?

> if their law
> said the owner can't sell to anyone else

That's not what the law says. That's
just your personal lie about what the law says.

> then it had to say that the
> sale to the government was to be done "within the imminent
> domain legal structure" then I'd have no quibble with it.

The local govt doesn't want the property.
Do you think the federal govt trumps the local
taxpayers when it comes to deciding what they
need or want?
0 new messages