Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Epilogue to the Kelo Case
Property Rights Alliance ^ | 2011-09-20 | J. Michael Wahlen

Posted on 09/22/2011 10:03:37 AM PDT by 92nina

Reason Magazine featured a great article that chronicles a new twist in the famous Kelo vs. New London case. This landmark case radically increased the size of government under the eminent domain clause by forcing Susette Kelo to leave her house so that the City of New London could use the land for “economic development” in 2005.

The new twist comes from a story recounted by a journalist and author Jeff Benedict. Benedict recounts a recent book reading of The Little Pink House (written on the Kelo case) in which Justice Richard N. Palmer, one of the 4 judges who voted against Kelo on the Connecticut Supreme Court was present. After the reading, Palmer came up to Susette Kelo and apologized. He explained to her that if he had known what New London would do with the land, he would have ruled differently.

While this change in opinion at the time would have swayed the 4-3 margin and allowed Susette to keep her home, it does not change the circumstances now. Kelo was ultimately forced to leave her “little pink house” which was razed for “economic development” that never came. As Reason notes, Justice Palmer, among others, should be sorry.

While Palmer’s apology doesn’t change the situation, it does go a long way to show the folly in taking property rights away from people. Hopefully we can all learn the lesson of Justice Palmer; that the property rights of citizens should be held sacred, and should not be sacrificed to the government in the name of economic development, or corporate gain.

(Excerpt) Read more at propertyrightsalliance.org ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Business/Economy; Government; Local News
KEYWORDS: corruption; eminentdomain; govtabuse; kelo; propertyrights; stateshavenorights; statesrights; tyranny
Unjust afterthought.

Take this article and others I found to the fight to the Libs on their own turf; put the Left on the defensive at Digg and at Reddit and in Stumbleupon and Delicious

1 posted on 09/22/2011 10:03:41 AM PDT by 92nina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 92nina
Kelo’s house was not razed. It was moved. This does not change the fact that the Kelo decision was the worst Supreme Court opinion since Dred Scott, but the author of the piece should have checked his facts.
2 posted on 09/22/2011 10:32:25 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
I would agree with "one of the worst" decisions since Dred Scott, but "the worst"? What about Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade?
3 posted on 09/22/2011 11:03:06 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Wickard V Filburn - blew a hole in the constitution that opened the way for the imperial Federal Government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn


4 posted on 09/22/2011 11:11:13 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

His “apology” shows he thinks he’s a legislator, not an unbiased interpreter of the law.


5 posted on 09/22/2011 11:14:36 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

His “apology” shows he thinks he’s a legislator, not an unbiased interpreter of the law.

That is exactly right. His "apology" to Ms Kelo and what subsequently happened has NOTHING to do with his sinister decision. Indeed his "apology" is really disturbing, explicit proof of his political (i.e. leftist) bias.

You just don't arbitrarily confiscate individual property so that the STATE can make money.

There is a discussion above about one of the worse Supreme Court decisions. It really is as fundamentally misguided as any decision in the history of the US relative to its past principle of free citizens. As purely "leftist" as any decision can be.

I think, but not sure, the Bush administration endorsed it. It should have been a major outrage and issue.

Johnny Suntrade

6 posted on 09/22/2011 11:52:28 AM PDT by jnsun (The Left: the need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
My criteria is how a decision affects the control of the individual by the State. In that regard Dred Scott has to stand out as the greatest miscarriage of justice in American history.

Plessy v. Ferguson, if I understand the case correctly, said the the State had the right to pass laws that mandated private companies to provide separate but equal accommodations. While it might have been wrong and unjust, it did not take away the rights of blacks to move freely and travel via rail.

Roe v. Wade did not further the State's power to control personal decisions. The legal reasoning may be suspect, but it was in a way a libertarian decision.

Kelo allows the State to take whatever it wants, at any time. The fact that they have to pay compensation is of little value since it's not a real transaction in the sense a private deal is.

7 posted on 09/22/2011 11:57:06 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DManA

That was pretty bad too. I still think Kelo may be worse, because it basically says everything belong to the King, and the King can take it any time he wants.

On the other hand, I’m not a legal scholar so I may be way off. Even if your choice stands, then Kelo is the worst in about half a century!


8 posted on 09/22/2011 12:01:17 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DManA; Verginius Rufus
... blew a hole in the constitution that opened the way for the imperial Federal Government.

I dissent.

The main case that killed the Republic and our limited government was SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) where the Court Reporter illegally inserted an instruction from the Court to the Lawyers prior to the start of the trial. That addition to the Synopsis or Head-Note was then relied on by subsequent courts leading to the evisceration of the Rights of the People and marrying them to the Privileges of Corporations.

No where in the case at trial was any determination made that this statement is true. As there were other cases involved in the lower courts determining the reach of the 14th Amendment, the Justices did not want to muddy the field with an ancillary decision, since it had no bearing on the tax case before the court.

IANAL - YMMV
Here is a good site with details: ReclaimDemocracy.org.

9 posted on 09/22/2011 12:18:18 PM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
The Dred Scott case shot down an attempt to undermine slavery in the territories, and Tawney's opinion included some racist thinking, but it didn't create slavery which had been supported by the legal system for 200 years by then. If anything it helped bring on the Civil War and therefore the end of slavery.

If Roe v. Wade was libertarian, so was Dred Scott--at least for the slaveholders. The Dred Scott decision did not trample on the rights of the states as Roe and Kelo did.

10 posted on 09/22/2011 2:04:24 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jnsun

There is no right to private property in land. The government permits an “owner” certain privileges in the use of a piece of land for which the user must pay rent to the government(property taxes). Those privileges are revocable at any time for any or no reason. So far the government has deigned to pay some compensation for its reassignment of the use of the land due to the benevolence of government.


11 posted on 09/22/2011 3:37:07 PM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Ruing that a person could be owned like a mule and plow is the antithesis of a libertarian viewpoint.

When I used the term State earlier I meant any government body, not the 50 States. It can be argued that any ruling that prohibits government control on, and restrictions placed on, the individual is less invasive than one that directly interferes with a person's life. For this reason I feel Kelo is worse than Roe vs Wade.

12 posted on 09/22/2011 3:49:53 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

There really isn’t a good way to do evil in the name of the law. Sorry, judge. You deserve a tree, a rope, some assembly required, and a repeat.


13 posted on 09/23/2011 2:18:48 AM PDT by MasterGunner01 (To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team SIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson