FBI seizing property (ppe)

[Marine Cpl]

The off topic is the revolver comment.

Who does the Takings Clause protect ?

1. 
   Home
2. Daily News
3. Takings clause applies to personal property,…

U.S. SUPREME COURT
Takings clause applies to personal property, SCOTUS rules in 'major blow' to set-aside programs
BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS

JUNE 22, 2015, 9:23 AM CDT




The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause requires the government to pay compensation for takings of personal property.

The court ruled in the case of raisin producers contesting a government set-aside program. SCOTUSblog calls the decision (PDF) “a major blow to government’s program of trying to boost prices by keeping crops off the market.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Three other justices agreed that the set-aside program was a taking, but disagreed on valuation.

The government’s duty to pay just compensation applies to personal property as well as real property, Roberts said. “The government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home,” Roberts wrote.

The principle goes back at least 800 years to the Magna Carta, which specifically protected agricultural crops from uncompensated takings, Roberts said.

The raisin set-aside program required a percentage of each grower’s crop to be physically set aside in certain years “for the account of” the government, without payment to the growers. The government then sells or disposes of the raisins with the goal of stabilizing raisin prices. The reserve requirement, Roberts said, “is a clear physical taking. Actual raisins are transferred from the growers to the government. Title to the raisins passes to the Raisin Committee.”

The Raisin Committee disposes of set-aside raisins in several ways, including overseas sales and donations to charities. Any profits are given back to raisin producers. Though growers retain this “contingent interest” in the raisins, there is still a physical taking requiring compensation, Roberts said.

So the Government takes personal property they have to paid compensation why because...

But the text of the Takings Clause doesn’t distinguish between personal property and real property. It says that “private property [shall not be] taken for public use, without just compensation.” This is hardly surprising. One of the primary evils the Founders sought to curtail when drafting the Takings Clause was the Continental Army’s practice of taking private property to supply soldiers during the war. Personal property, such as food and clothing, were probably some of the most desirable targets for an army on the move. In light of this history, it is illogical to suggest that the Takings Clause protects only real property.

No. The revolver comment was not off topic. It was used to show that a court can ban it despite what the actual 2A says just like in 2015 when they applied personal property to private property in contrast to what the 5A actually says. My point is that the “government” SCOTUS in this case skewed the 5A to benefit themselves and give more power to the government despite what the 5A limits them to and despite previous SCOTUS decisions on the topic at hand regarding the seizing of property.

The Takings Clause was born from the Magna Carter but you and SCOTUS from 2015 want to ignore that. Anything to give the government more power is good for you.

 

[nortatoga]

I guess you missed this...

The principle goes back at least 800 years to the Magna Carta, which specifically protected agricultural crops from uncompensated takings, Roberts said.

 

[spat]

I guess you missed this...

The principle goes back at least 800 years to the Magna Carta, which specifically protected agricultural crops from uncompensated takings, Roberts said.

Maybe the only way for our mask merchant from the OP to get justice now is for him to sue and have the "fair market value" of the masks that were stolen declared to be above what his asking price was.

 

[nortatoga]

Maybe the only way for our mask merchant from the OP to get justice now is for him to sue and have the "fair market value" of the masks that were stolen declared to be above what his asking price was.

Exactly he has that option!

 

[spat]

Exactly he has that option!

He has the option to try, and I assume he will.

I have severe doubts that NY courts will deliver him justice.

 

[nortatoga]

He has the option to try, and I assume he will.

I have severe doubts that NY courts will deliver him justice.

I would think it would be federal court as it was the FBI ?

 

[spat]

I would think it would be federal court as it was the FBI ?

A federal court in NY staffed by judges who live in NYC or the surrounding black hole of liberty most likely.

 

[nortatoga]

A federal court in NY staffed by judges who live in NYC or the surrounding black hole of liberty most likely.

First stop yes!

No one here even knows what his compensation is, or will be!

 

[Airborneguy]

He’ll have to address the criminal aspect as well. He was charged with coughing on the agents if I recall correctly.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I guess you missed this...

The principle goes back at least 800 years to the Magna Carta, which specifically protected agricultural crops from uncompensated takings, Roberts said.

You should actually read the Magna Carter rather than an author’s opinion on it.

British Library

www.bl.uk

It specifically prohibits the taking of personal property for government use unless he is given immediate payment or he consents for it to be taken to be paid later. Ultimately, the consent is his.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

 

[nortatoga]

He’ll have to address the criminal aspect as well. He was charged with coughing on the agents if I recall correctly.

I think you are right. Then he may not want to push that can of worms and be happy with what compensation he is offered.

 

[nortatoga]

You should actually read the Magna Carter rather than an author’s opinion on it.

British Library

www.bl.uk

It specifically prohibits the taking of personal property for government use unless he is given immediate payment or he consents for it to be taken to be paid later. Ultimately, the consent is his.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

Will Roberts said just that!!!

Why can't you understand both Real Property and Personal Property are Private Property!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Will Roberts said just that!!!

Why can't you understand both Real Property and Personal Property are Private Property!

Because it isn’t.

 

[nortatoga]

Because it isn’t.

So what you are saying is that the Government only has to give compensation for taking Real property ( Private Property )! When the ruling I posted says they have to pay compensation for both?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So what you are saying is that the Government only has to give compensation for taking Real property ( Private Property )! When the ruling I posted says they have to pay compensation for both?

Yes. That is what is written in the 5A. Private property. (Real Property) The panel of judges in 2015 ruled against what the 5A actually says to illegally give the government more power and ruled in contrary to previous SCOTUS rulings regarding Private Property. (Real Property) (Eminent Domain)

That’s my point. That’s why I used the revolver analogy. In the future, a panel of judges will rule revolvers not protected just like a panel of judges in Miller ruled SBR’s not protected despite their use in the military. Just because a group of politically corrupted men wearing black robes skew an interpretation for their own purposes, it doesn’t make it right.

Let’s go by what the founders actually thought.

Thomas Jefferson said, “To take from one because it is thought that his own productivity has acquired too much, in order to give to others who have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association: the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his hard work and the profits acquired by it.”

 

[meketrefe]

The problem is a lot deeper than a few requisitions of masks for an emergency situation.
We have how many aircraft carriers and fleets and no masks or gloves?
Think how much all that spending is helping the average Joe.

The GOV are the worse in preparation of any kind. They cannot even square a budget for one single year.

The lack of accountability at all levels is appalling.

 

[Darth]

Damn, one sleep and I missed all the back peddling.

 

[nortatoga]

Yes. That is what is written in the 5A. Private property. (Real Property) The panel of judges in 2015 ruled against what the 5A actually says to illegally give the government more power and ruled in contrary to previous SCOTUS rulings said in response to Private Property. (Real Property) (Eminent Domain)

That’s my point. That’s why I used the revolver analogy. In the future, a panel of judges will rule revolvers not protected just like a panel of judges in Miller ruled SBR’s not protected despite their use in the military. Just because a group of politically corrupted men wearing black robes skew an interpretation for their own purposes, it doesn’t make it right.

Let’s go by what the founders actually thought.

Thomas Jefferson said, “To take from one because it is thought that his own productivity has acquired too much, in order to give to others who have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association: the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his hard work and the profits acquired by it.”

Will the Ruling I posted did not give the Government any more power! Yes all the cases you found were for Real property! And if the Government took it the owner had to be compensated!!

This case also now ruled that the owner of personal property taken by the Government also has to be compensated!

Again now both Real Property and Personal Property both are protected as Private Property!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Will the Ruling I posted did not give the Government any more power! Yes all the cases you found were for Real property! And if the Government took it the owner had to be compensated!!

This case also now ruled that the owner of personal property taken by the Government also has to be compensated!

Again now both Real Property and Personal Property both are protected as Private Property!!

What don’t you understand about the new ruling being a perversion of the 5A. The 5A never applied to personal property. They illegally made it so. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. If the government wanted the 5A to apply to personal property, there is a process to amend the 5A. They didn’t do that. Instead they rendered a perverse ruling skewing the meaning of the 5A.

And you seem to think that is kosher. It’s not. Nor is it Kosher for how they perversed the meaning of the 2A in Miller.

You really don’t see any problem there? You think SCOTUS should be able to render any ruling in contrast to what the constitution actually says? If you do that is a problem and explains why you seem to always support governmental overreach. It’s kosher for you once a Court makes it so.

 

[nortatoga]

What don’t you understand about the new ruling being a perversion of the 5A. The 5A never applied to personal property. They illegally made it so. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. If the government wanted the 5A to apply to personal property, there is a process to amend the 5A. They didn’t do that. Instead they rendered a perverse ruling skewing the meaning of the 5A.

And you seem to think that is kosher. It’s not. Nor is it Kosher for how they perversed the meaning of the 2A in Miller.

You really don’t see any problem there? You think SCOTUS should be able to render any ruling in contrast to what the constitution actually says? If you do that is a problem and explains why you seem to always support governmental overreach. It’s kosher for you once a Court makes it so.

So Personal Property can be Taken without compensation that is what you believe?

 

[Marine Cpl]

What? Who said that? Forget it. Sometimes I think you deliberately misinterpret information so that you can’t own what’s being said. A deliberate acting of not understanding.

Forget it. You are fine with the governmental taking of property despite the founder’s intentions. You are free to be. That’s your right.

 

[Airborneguy]

Sometimes I think you deliberately misinterpret information so that you can’t own what’s being said.

You just described every thread on this forum!

 

[nortatoga]

What? Who said that? Forget it. Sometimes I think you deliberately misinterpret information so that you can’t own what’s being said. A deliberate acting of not understanding.

Forget it. You are fine with the governmental taking of property despite the founder’s intentions. You are free to be. That’s your right.

You said it Will!

*What don’t you understand about the new ruling being a perversion of the 5A. The 5A never applied to personal property. *

*If the government wanted the 5A to apply to personal property, there is a process to amend the 5A. *

*They didn’t do that. Instead they rendered a perverse ruling skewing the meaning of the 5A.*

So if as you say it did not apply to Personal Property then no compensation is due to the mask seller!


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Taking Clause Law and Legal Definition

The Takings Clause refers to the last clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution that the limits power of eminent domain. The taking clause requires the entity to pay just compensation on taking private property for public use. The purpose of the takings clause is to ensure that the financial burdens of public policy are shared by the entire public and not unfairly placed on individual property owners.

 

[Marine Cpl]

See what I mean? Now he deliberately forgets the difference between private vs personal property even though he spoke about it in previous posts. This guy is something else. Who’s on first? What’s on second? That’s what he does.

@nortatoga. I see right through your BS. Just be a man already. Don’t respond or admit that there is a difference. But this who’s on first shit is stupid.

You know what? Don’t bother. You are right and I am wrong. You are correct. Private vs personal property is the exact same thing. You are 100 percent correct and when it come to expanding governmental powers, a future ruling expanding law via skewing an interpretation in a courtroom is just as valid as changing it via Constitutional Convention. That is what the founders intended. You are 100 percent correct. I concede.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You just described every thread on this forum!

Some threads. Yep.

 

[nortatoga]

See what I mean? Now he deliberately forgets the difference between private vs personal property even though he spoke about it in previous posts. This guy is something else. Who’s on first? What’s on second? That’s what he does.

@nortatoga. I see right through your BS. Just be a man already. Don’t respond or admit that there is a difference. But this who’s on first shit is stupid.

You know what? Don’t bother. You are right and I am wrong. You are correct. Private vs personal property is the exact same thing. You are 100 percent correct and when it come to expanding governmental powers, a future ruling expanding law via skewing an interpretation in a courtroom is just as valid as changing it via Constitutional Convention. That is what the founders intended. You are 100 percent correct. I concede.

Please tell us all what the taking clause of the 5th amendment means to you? nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[dwa12479]

I tried a while back to have a real, deep and serious conversation in regards to this topic, it went next to nowhere because of ignorance and fear of some serious truths.

Gotta get ready for work.... Good day all.

Stay safe Brother. Thank you for the work you do.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Please tell us all what the taking clause of the 5th amendment means to you? nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Not worth going in circles with you. You win like I said. Enjoy.

 

[nortatoga]

Not worth going in circles with you. You win like I said. Enjoy.

Not a win for me, but a big loss for you if you are misinterpreting what the 5th Amendment means.

 

[GOPerfect]

The Taking of Property for Public Use - FindLaw

Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private land for public use. Learn more about this power, and restrictions on it, at FindLaw.com's section on Eminent Domain.

realestate.findlaw.com