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