For Sale by Government

Conressman Steve King | July 2005 | Steve King

[pwking]

From the desk of...Congressman Steve King

For Sale by Government

The Supreme Court just put a "For Sale" sign in front of every American home, farm and business. No offense, but if somebody can find a way to make the property your house sits on more valuable, maybe by selling your land to a developer for a convenience store, the government can take your house. The kicker is that you'll be paid what the court decides is "just compensation," not market value.

The recent 5-4 decision by the Court in Kelo v. City of New London expands eminent domain to the point where your property can be purchased without your consent and then sold to another private entity - like a health club you can't join.

If someone else can make more money off your property than you can, then your home and business are in danger of demolition. It doesn't matter how many coats of paint you put on your house, how much landscaping you do, or how beautiful your view is. Your property is "blighted." No amount of your investment and upkeep can match the tax base provided by corporate America. If the government thinks that it could get more tax revenue if your property were put to a different use- a bigger house, or a new factory- you are out of luck. And out of your home.

And we thought we owned our property. Seems we are only leasing it.

The definition of eminent domain comes from the Latin term dominium eminens, which means "supreme lordship." Sounds ominous. We were taught as children that eminent domain meant that government could take property only for "public use," like roads and railroads. But the 15 Connecticut citizens who had their homes and businesses taken away from them by the Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo case found out that "public use" now means: whatever the powerful want to do with your home as long as it might bring in more tax dollars.

Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the majority, concludes that local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. Indeed, Justice Stevens. The Framers had no intention of allowing federal judges to impart their wisdom on this issue. That is why they put the eminent domain clause directly into the Constitution. It says "nor shall private property be taken for pubilc use without just compensation."

Any American can now have their property taken for the gain of another private entity. The consequences of this decision will not be hard to foretell. The winners are those with great influence, wealth, and power. I wonder if Justice Stevens' opinion changes if the buyer happens to be a foreign-owned entity? Or if a Nevada church could be bulldozed to make room for a brothel. Remember, it's all about the taxes.

I offered an amendment to the Supreme Court's budget to try in one small way to address the injustice that was done to the 15 property owners in the Kelo case. The Supreme Court ruling forced them to give up their homes so that private developers can tear down their homes and businesses to develop the land for other businesses. I wish I could give them their homes back, but I did the next best thing. I introduced an amendment that takes $1.5 million dollars out of the general appropriation for the Supreme Court. This amount was intended to represent the nominal value of the property that the Supreme Court took away from homeowners and business owners in New London. To these homeowners, I am sure their homes are worth much more than this sum. There is no way to put a price on family memories in a home, or the value of the American dream of home ownership, or on our private property rights.

The Supreme Court is on notice. Americans will not stand for usurpation of their constitutional rights by the Court. Congress and every state should take action to solve this problem created by the Courts and we will maintain our constitutionally guaranteed rights. We all just bet our house on it.

[Savage Beast]

UNTIL the Republicans come out united with a strategy for nullifying this odious decision, they will get NO more funds and NO more support from me.

[Reaganghost]

I would suggest consideration of the impeachment of the majority.

[grumple]

The kicker is that you'll be paid what the court decides is "just compensation," not market value.

This is not the kicker. The amount of "just compensation" may be determined by the courts, but you can probably bet that these "just compensation" payments are going to be transferred from the American taxpayers. In effect, American citizens will be inadvertantly paying homeowners to leave their said homes. Cause you can also bet, that the court justices that make these "just compensation" determinations aren't paying it out of their own pockets....

Freepers in the areas of these justices should band together and form coalitions, small corporations or whatever, and petition (ferociously and repetitively) to remove any court justice in any state who makes one of these taxpayer funded "just compensation" payment decions...if you know what I'm getting at...

[grumple]

to remove any court justice in any state who makes one of these taxpayer funded "just compensation" payment decions...if you know what I'm getting at...

I wasn't very clear. I meant remove these justices from their homes through "eminent domain" and not remove them from their lofty determinable positions on high...

[Savage Beast]

I agree. All five justices who made this decision should be impeached--as certainly as if they had made the Dred Scott decision.

[pwking]

I understand your frustration but with that attitude, there will be no good men and women left in office. But you can sit and sulk if you like.

[andyk]

Americans will not stand for usurpation of their constitutional rights by the Court. Congress and every state should take action to solve this problem created by the Courts and we will maintain our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Yes, we will. Any legislation curbing the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is DOA. Any thought of removing a judge is DOA. We will stand for it, just like we always do.

[jeffers]

"All five justices who made this decision should be impeached--as certainly as if they had made
the Dred Scott decision."

Here you go, get busy and spread the word:

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

[jeffers]

"Americans will not stand for usurpation of their constitutional rights by the Court. Congress and every state should take action to solve this problem created by the Courts and we will maintain
our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Yes, we will. Any legislation curbing the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is DOA. Any thought of removing a judge is DOA. We will stand for it, just like we always do."

I'm not planning any trips to Connecticut, but if any bulldozers come down my driveway, I guarantee you that neither the developer nor the officials in his pocket will...profit...from their decision.

[andyk]

if any bulldozers come down my driveway, I guarantee you that neither the developer nor the officials in his pocket will...profit...from their decision.

Hehe - keep your powder dry :)