Skip to comments.Supreme Court's Kelo Decision Trashes Taxpayer Rights as Well as Property Rights, Citizen Group Says
Posted on 06/23/2005 4:06:04 PM PDT by Destro
Supreme Court's Kelo Decision Trashes Taxpayer Rights as Well as Property Rights, Citizen Group Says
6/23/2005 1:13:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Pete Sepp or Annie Patnaude, 703-683-5700, both of the National Taxpayers Union
ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case today has wide implications for taxpayers, not just property owners, according to the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU), a non-partisan citizen group that filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case on behalf of the homeowners. John Berthoud, President of NTU, offered the following reaction on the heels of the decision:
"By giving governments a green light to bulldoze citizens' homes in the name of development schemes that supposedly promise higher revenues, the Supreme Court is also granting politicians a license to trample on overburdened taxpayers. Property rights have always been inseparable from taxpayer rights, which is why this ruling is one of the most shocking setbacks for economic freedom and limited government in a decade.
Within hours of this decision being issued, overreaching bureaucrats and their political allies around the country began declaring victory on behalf of subsidized development schemes that will not only cost citizens the residences and businesses they worked hard to build, but will also cost taxpayers the money they worked hard to earn. From shopping malls to sports stadiums, the Court has unjustly given its blessing to many crony-capitalist projects that depend more heavily on public funding than free-market principles to succeed.
Justice O'Connor was absolutely right when she pointed out that the beneficiaries of this ruling 'are likely to be those with disproportionate power and influence in the political process.' Even the majority of Justices acknowledged that states are free to enact restrictions on eminent-domain power grabs. At least these two facts give taxpayers hope, and give NTU a mission. As an organization that has fought back against big government for 35 years, we will not surrender our property rights or taxpayer rights because of this ruling. We the people will take back the Fifth Amendment, state by state, community by community, if necessary."
NTU was founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels. In addition to joining an amicus brief with eight other groups on behalf of the property owners in Kelo, NTU also signed an October 2004 coalition letter from over 40 organizations urging the Bush Administration to "affirm its support for property rights and refrain from filing a brief in Kelo." Note: Copies of the brief and the letter are available online at http://www.ntu.org.
/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. This original meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, being a rather more general reference to any incorporated body. The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions made by these corporate groups. According to various theorists, corporatism was an attempt to create a "modern" version of feudalism by merging the "corporate" interests with those of the state.
I find this one of the most frightening decisions ever handed down from the Supreme Court.
me and you both.
You hadn't noticed? Neither party is worth the powder....
You know what? I assumed when Republicans came into power we would correct things - especially after 9/11. What I learned is that the Republican party used Conservatives - waves a red flag issue in Conservatives' faces to get them all distracted and then expands the power of the state over the individual - a DC version of the shell game. We are like toads in slowly boiling water.
I am almost as shocked by this as I was by the CFR decision.
"I find this one of the most frightening decisions ever handed down from the Supreme Court."
It set aside the 5th amendment concerning private property.
It defined eminent domain to include private use of private property taken by the government.
It allows government confiscation of private property for sale for any reason as long as the government can loosely define the action as a benefit for the government.
It proved the Supreme Court is out of control and will set aside the Constitution at will for the benefit of the government.
The ruling stinks, yes. But Congress is drawing up laws to counteract this decision as we type. This will be fixed before the year is out. The Supremes even pointed out that Congress can change this at their leisure.
Campaign Finance Reform aka First Amendment Reform.
Oh yea - that was bad law and decision too.
You know what - it is not over reacting at all.
It won't just be US businesses that will be asking for others private property. Toyoto, Nissan etc wanting to build plants will use this ruling to their advantage.
Does the Constitution address this or does it not? It seems that the only safe constitutional rights are the imaginary ones found in the shadows of the real thing.
Our local gov't wants to impose/expand a historic district on a huge portion of town. This would seem to help them do this against the wishes of the homeowners.
So now Congress has to go trampling on state and local rights to do what the Supremes should have done? Don't get me wrong, I don't know wether or not such a law would be good or bad. Such action would further erode, however small, the federalist system.
Are you sure? I know the majority opinion said that States may provide such protections, but I hadn't heard that Congress can.
Toyoto wants to build a new plant (not sure if it's a auto or parts plant) in TN...and guess what the LT Gov owns at least 300 of those acres. Lot of farm land involved to be stolen for a fraction of the true replacement value.
I hope you're right
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.