FBI seizing property (ppe)

[nortatoga]

Taking Clause Law and Legal Definition

The Takings Clause refers to the last clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution that limits the 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]

Here he comes. The defender of government overreach via force. Every thread is the same with him. That amendment refers to private property. Eminent domain. Not personal property.

 

[nortatoga]

Here he comes. The defender of government overreach via force. Every thread is the same with him. That amendment refers to private property. Eminent domain. Not personal property.

Really reread what you just said!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Really reread what you just said!

I did. What I posted is correct.

 

[nortatoga]

And just what is the difference between private and personal property?

 

[Marine Cpl]

And just what is the difference between private and personal property?

Look it up. I believe there is a “For Dummies” edition that explains it clearly.

 

[nortatoga]

Look it up. I believe there is a “For Dummies” edition that explains it clearly.

You just can't keep it as a adult conversation can you!

 

[Marine Cpl]

You just can't keep it as a adult conversation can you!

What are you talking about?

Here is the “For Dummies” version.

Law Articles - dummies

Get the lowdown on law, whether it's contracts, copyrights, or the U.S. Constitution. We've got the basics to help you navigate law school, small business, and beyond.

www.dummies.com

And here is the history of the “Takings Clause”.

A Brief History of the Takings Clause

No insults here. Private property refers to land. Not chattels and intangibles.

 

[spat]

Here's a good example for all of you who don't seem to understand "fair market value".

The average cost of a ticket to get into Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida on February 2, 2020 was $10,000. A ticket to get in a few days before or after was orders of magnitude less.

Why ? They had an event on the 2nd that drove demand for those tickets very high. That's why the "fair market value" for those tickets in January was maybe $100 and 100x that much a couple days later.

That's why you can't pretend that the value of a ventilator in February is the same as the value in April. The massive change in demand equates to a massive change in value.

Also, FUAC stealing the ventilators from upstate hospitals (some of which are privately owned) because NYC needs them on Monday and the hospital might not need them for another week or 2, I have a question. How would you have felt if he ordered all the surplus ventilators NYC had 2 weeks ago sent to Italy ? After all, they needed them 2 weeks ago, and they were just sitting around in NYC. What if they promised to return them when we needed them, or pay "fair value" for them ?

 

[Airborneguy]

I like Spat, I didn’t threaten to kill him. I don’t agree with much that he says anymore but he’s not stupid and articulates himself well.

Unfortunately others here forget how to read when they see an opposing view.

Skimming just now, I saw something about me having stated I have 65,000 rounds of 9mm. Da fuq? Perfect example. Not only do I not have anywhere remotely close to that number of 9mm rounds stashed away, but I can’t think of any time recently where I’ve talked about 9mm rounds in any capacity here.

Some of you are cracking up. That’s why I keep saying that maybe it’s time to try to impose your worldview with force. Living this way is clearly not good for your mental health.

 

[Airborneguy]

Here's a good example for all of you who don't seem to understand "fair market value".

The average cost of a ticket to get into Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens, Florida on February 2, 2020 was $10,000. A ticket to get in a few days before or after was orders of magnitude less.

Why ? They had an event on the 2nd that drove demand for those tickets very high. That's why the "fair market value" for those tickets in January was maybe $100 and 100x that much a couple days later.

That's why you can't pretend that the value of a ventilator in February is the same as the value in April. The massive change in demand equates to a massive change in value.

Also, FUAC stealing the ventilators from upstate hospitals (some of which are privately owned) because NYC needs them on Monday and the hospital might not need them for another week or 2, I have a question. How would you have felt if he ordered all the surplus ventilators NYC had 2 weeks ago sent to Italy ? After all, they needed them 2 weeks ago, and they were just sitting around in NYC. What if they promised to return them when we needed them, or pay "fair value" for them ?

Again, you’re leaving out the middle man (conveniently) who artificially created a shortage and attempted to sell at an unnatural markup.

Remember WAY back when I mentioned concert tickets myself?

When the concert tickets are expensive because Led Zeppelin has finally decided to get back together, that’s not price gouging.

When Zed Leppelin: A Tribute Band is playing a small local venue and someone buys all the tickets first then tries to sell them double the price, that’s price gouging.

When it’s a concert, people just complain and don’t go. When it’s life-saving equipment in the middle of a pandemic, the FBI comes and takes them.

Why do you continue to leave out this convenient part of the equation which the specific situations this thread was actually supposed to be about had this one key fact in common when making up examples to explain the concept?

 

[holdover]

You just condemned the entire stock market

The douche bag that bought the masks , put his money at risk by front running the entire country , and instead of being rewarded for successfully calling it, was punished and his property stolen and investment lost . It could have played out the other way, The virus could have been a fat nothing burger and he was stuck sitting on a warehouse full of masks that he couldn't move.

 

[SomeSoldier]

And just what is the difference between private and personal property?

Is your home considered private property or personal property?

Answer (1 of 19): Insurance defines this, by the way. All fee simple estates are defined as privately owned. If you’re in an HOA (Home Owner’s Association), you own your unit. The HOA maintains the exterior. Personal property are the interior accoutrements, such as furniture, TV’s, appliances. Pr...

www.quora.com

 

[holdover]

When it’s a concert, people just complain and don’t go. When it’s life-saving equipment in the middle of a pandemic, the FBI comes and takes them.

The Communists believed in the principles of the right of the state supersedes the rights of the individual. The country before the individual , We used to believe the oppisite.

However morally depraved the owners of the masks might be , Its their property to which the government does not have a legal claim. They do have a legitimate moral claim.

 

[nortatoga]

Real property, personal property, and the Takings Clause

The government must pay you if it takes your house. Should that rule be any different if it takes your furniture? The Supreme Court will hear oral argument next month in Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, a case involving a Depression-era regulation that, as Justice Kagan put it, might...

pacificlegal.org

Takings clause applies to physical seizure of personal property

The Supreme Court held in Horne v. Dep't of Agric., — U.S. — (2015), that the takings clause applies to physical takings of personal property (like cars) as well as to real property. Thus a government program designed to shore up the price of raisins by requiring farmers to hand over a certain...

scholar.harvard.edu

Takings clause applies to personal property, SCOTUS rules in 'major blow' to set-aside programs

The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

www.abajournal.com

 

[Robin]

For those in good standing I would give the shirt off my back.

Don't ever try to take it.
Robin

 

[spat]

Again, you’re leaving out the middle man (conveniently) who artificially created a shortage and attempted to sell at an unnatural markup.

Remember WAY back when I mentioned concert tickets myself?

When the concert tickets are expensive because Led Zeppelin has finally decided to get back together, that’s not price gouging.

When Zed Leppelin: A Tribute Band is playing a small local venue and someone buys all the tickets first then tries to sell them double the price, that’s price gouging.

When it’s a concert, people just complain and don’t go. When it’s life-saving equipment in the middle of a pandemic, the FBI comes and takes them.

Why do you continue to leave out this convenient part of the equation which the specific situations this thread was actually supposed to be about had this one key fact in common when making up examples to explain the concept?

Because it's irrelevant.

There are always middle men. They are an important layer, they let the producers concentrate on producing and free them up from the problems of distribution.

The middle men fulfill a critical role. They also help price commodities at the current fair market value.

You would be right about the "artificial shortage" if this guy had cornered the market on masks and created a monopoly on distribution. If he had 90% of the masks on the market and was artificially creating the demand, then *maybe* government intervention would be warranted.

He didn't.

He was one guy selling a fraction of a % of the masks in the market, and he was guessing at the true market value of those masks right now.

You don't want to pay the true value, you want your superbowl tickets for the price of the my little pony expo tickets because why ? It would cut into FUAC's raise ?

Paying him a fair price wouldn't cost anyone their lives. But I bet FUAC's hoarding them will.

 

[Doc8404]

It literally says they're paying them in the posted article.

what?
You expected people to read beyond the article title??

 

[tapper3]

I have a question because I have no idea how such a confiscation works.

Prior to a raid does the government approach the owner to inquire about purchasing these items? Or do they just learn of their existence, decide the owner is illegally hoarding, and simply take the stuff?

 

[Toecutter]

I found couple of articles ,these masks are being sold now from suppliers to the states from 3 to 7 dollars each. If the government needs the masks they should pay him what he asked or negotiate a price. The going price for these masks is no longer 50 cents. I don’t know what their idea of fair market price is , but due to demand the price of these things may be 700 percent higher then normal. Just wait till a dozen eggs are 40 dollars .

if anyone has info of what the government is paying for these masks from suppliers right now post it. This was all I found. I also saw an Andy update on the situ and he said NY was paying 7dollars each for these masks.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Real property, personal property, and the Takings Clause

The government must pay you if it takes your house. Should that rule be any different if it takes your furniture? The Supreme Court will hear oral argument next month in Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, a case involving a Depression-era regulation that, as Justice Kagan put it, might...

pacificlegal.org

Takings clause applies to physical seizure of personal property

The Supreme Court held in Horne v. Dep't of Agric., — U.S. — (2015), that the takings clause applies to physical takings of personal property (like cars) as well as to real property. Thus a government program designed to shore up the price of raisins by requiring farmers to hand over a certain...

scholar.harvard.edu

Takings clause applies to personal property, SCOTUS rules in 'major blow' to set-aside programs

The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street to Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

www.abajournal.com

You know how the Supreme Court gets to decide that tomorrow revolvers are okay to be infringed upon despite what is actually written in Constitution?

Well this is the same thing. A perverse decision was rendered in 2015 against personal property despite the Takings Clause referring to only Private Property and being born from the Magna Carter which also referred to Private Property. And you know what? A future decision will be rendered perversely again.

I bet you kept saying to yourself, “Fuck he is right! Everything I find in reference to the subject refers to land. Stemming from the 1700’s until today. Every Supreme Court decision also refers to land. I’m screwed!”

But then you found that perverse 2015 decision that goes against all others. Jackpot.

 

[spat]

I like Spat, I didn’t threaten to kill him. I don’t agree with much that he says anymore but he’s not stupid and articulates himself well.

Unfortunately others here forget how to read when they see an opposing view.

Skimming just now, I saw something about me having stated I have 65,000 rounds of 9mm. Da fuq? Perfect example. Not only do I not have anywhere remotely close to that number of 9mm rounds stashed away, but I can’t think of any time recently where I’ve talked about 9mm rounds in any capacity here.

Some of you are cracking up. That’s why I keep saying that maybe it’s time to try to impose your worldview with force. Living this way is clearly not good for your mental health.

We disagree on a few things, we agree on many others.

But since neither of us has any real power to effect those things it would be silly to "hate" over the disagreements. Best we can do is try to build a convincing argument to change some minds.

Even if we know we will never change each others mind, this is an open forum so the discussion is still valuable. @Airborneguy isn't going to change my mind about government seizing private assets and I'm not going to change his. But there are a lot of other people reading this, and maybe some of them can be persuaded to one side or the other.

 

[Airborneguy]

I have a question because I have no idea how such a confiscation works.

Prior to a raid does the government approach the owner to inquire about purchasing these items? Or do they just learn of their existence, decide the owner is illegally hoarding, and simply take the stuff?

Also covered in the articles.

 

[GOPerfect]

I think there are many basement dwellers that should actually read ALL of the founding documents. Research how things came about those 250ish years ago.

So many read little bits and pieces of the Constitution and think they are experts. Way more versed than the constitutional scholars.

Life goes on....

 

[Marine Cpl]

I think there are many basement dwellers that should actually read ALL of the founding documents. Research how things came about those 250ish years ago.

So many read little bits and pieces of the Constitution and think they are experts. Way more versed than the constitutional scholars.

Life goes on....

What the constitution actually says on it’s own is clear. The argument should be stopped there. But if you go further and read quotes from the Founders themselves in the federalists papers, you will see that in reference to guns, they meant for self defense and militia use and in regards to the confiscation of property, they referred to land.

 

[GOPerfect]

What the constitution actually says on it’s own is clear. The argument should be stopped there. But if you go further and read quotes from the Founders themselves in the federalists papers, you will see that in reference to guns, they meant for self defense and militia use and in regards to the confiscation of property, they referred to land.

I'm pretty well versed in this document. Even the parts that so many don't read. I read the personal writings of many of the FF's. My statement a couple of posts ago was in reference to general ideas of the Constitution, not just guns.

A lot of serious ignorance comes out when people speak of the documents that founded this Nation.

 

[GOPerfect]

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.

 

[nortatoga]

You know how the Supreme Court gets to decide that tomorrow revolvers are okay to be infringed upon despite what is actually written in Constitution?

Well this is the same thing. A perverse decision was rendered in 2015 against personal property despite the Takings Clause referring to only Private Property and being born from the Magna Carter which also referred to Private Property. And you know what? A future decision will be rendered perversely again.

I bet you kept saying to yourself, “Fuck he is right! Everything I find in reference to the subject refers to land. Stemming from the 1700’s until today. Every Supreme Court decision also refers to land. I’m screwed!”

But then you found that perverse 2015 decision that goes against all others. Jackpot.

Did you even read the Courts ruling?

And try to stay on the topic at hand.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Did you even read the Courts ruling?

And try to stay on the topic at hand.

Yes I did. And what is off topic? Why don’t you explain it if you think some don’t understand?

 

[nortatoga]

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.