A Win for Big Government (Kelo v New London)

The Washington Times ^ | June 24, 2005

[sirthomasthemore]

Cities may now seize homes and businesses and hand them over to private developers to raise tax revenue. That's what the Supreme Court decided yesterday in Kelo v. New London, a 5-4 ruling that strips Connecticut homeowner Susette Kelo and several others of their homes and land. By siding with New London, the court drastically expands traditional eminent-domain powers beyond highways and fighting urban blight. This is a resounding defeat for ordinary landowners and a threat to property rights. Homeowners now own their homes only if the government wants them to.

[sirthomasthemore]

"Homeowners now own their homes only if the government wants them to."

************

Great line!

The Battle of New London isn't over yet. Get your muskets and pitchforks, and march to the sound of the guns. -:)

[Bommer]

"Homeowners now own their homes only if the government wants them to."

I don't mind moving, but my guns might have another thing to say about it!

[skip_intro]

Has anyone heard el Presidente's take on this?

[Natural Law]

First we got used to accepting that we are only allowed to keep as much of our income as the government "lets" us keep. Now they have ratcheted it up to include real property. I don't see how this is materially different than what Mugabe did to white farmers in Zimbabwe.

[Old_Mil]

This is unbelievable. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

So what's the solution folks? After a decade of Republican control of the Congress and a half decade of Republican control of the White House and Congress it's come to this?

Absurd. A socialist policy to further the ambitions of the robber-barons of industry.

[bstein80]

The landowners should lock themselves in their house, raise the Gonzales "Come and Take it Flag" of Texas Independence, and arm themselves. Make the government come and physically take their property at the barrel of a gun on national television.

[Noachian]

This stands the Fifth Amendment's takings clause on its head.

Just what kind of remedy do the people have when the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling?

Who overrules the judiciary?

[claudiustg]

--- I don't see how this is materially different than what Mugabe did to white farmers in Zimbabwe.---

Exactly what my wife said. Here it is the courts doing it though. The Dims are getting pushed out of elective office, so now they're using the courts as a last resort. Here's a case where I live:

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2005/06/23/news/news01.txt

It's something new every day. The courts are running Fish and Game and Forestry.

[jwalsh07]

Bears repeating.

Homeowners now own their homes only if the government wants them to.

[Age of Reason]

The landowners should lock themselves in their house, raise the Gonzales "Come and Take it Flag" of Texas Independence

And they will broadcast that a cult of fanatics are hold-up in their compound molesting children.

Then they will send in the tanks.

While the rest of America watches it on TV and cheers.

[Age of Reason]

The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Next decision will be about quartering British troops in our homes.

[nygoose]

Why start a new thread on this subject?

[LibertarianInExile]

Well, at least lately, Mugabe doesn't mouth platitudes about how Zimbabwe provides equality under law and protects its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, let alone stops private property from being stolen, er, taken for others' private use. So maybe it's a little less hypocritical when it happens there.

[TheOtherOne]

I don't mind moving, but my guns might have another thing to say about it!

That is prime tagline material...

[HarryCaul]

All your property are belong to SCOTUS.

[Republican Wildcat]

This is quite a tragedy. I certainly hope they were at least required to give Ms. Kelo compensation.

[Old_Mil]

In other news, bstein80 was arrested under orders of the Department of Homeland security under provisions of the Patriot Act. His whereabouts are unknown.



Some other thoughts from wise people:

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Has anyone heard el Presidente's take on this?

I've been wondering all day why I haven't heard any White House reaction to one of the most outrageous Supreme Court rulings in recent memory. I guess Bush isn't in any real danger of losing his Crawford ranch to a Wal*Mart building project, but he should show some outrage and some compassion for those less fortunate souls who will lose their property because of this horrible ruling.

[Republican Wildcat]

Breakdown of Justices:

Opinion of the Court: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg

Dissent: O'Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas

[LibertarianInExile]

"Next decision will be about quartering British troops in our homes."

Not one cent for tribute? Whaddya mean? We pay our UN dues and keep those aid shipments goin' to North Korea and Islamist countries!

[DB]

Why can't congress pass a law banning the practice?

All the courts did is say it's constitutional (which it ISN'T). That doesn't mean there can't be a federal law prohibiting it.

[Checkers]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1574059&mesg_id=1574059

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1575546&mesg_id=1575546

DU, of all places, doesn't like the ruling.

[clee1]

Guns overrule the judiciary, and any other tyranny for that matter.

Time for the Second American Revolution.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

And it's not as if this latest property-rights defeat is an isolated incident of judicial liberalism. We've had all too many examples of liberalism gone mad just in recent weeks from the "high" court:

- If a 17-year-old plans and carries out a mass murder in which thousands of innocent human beings are killed, no American state is allowed to execute him because he hadn't yet turned 18 years of age. (A 5-4 ruling with Kennedy joining the four liberals.)

- The Supreme Court should take into consideration foreign courts' views when considering cases like the death penalty. (A 6-3 opinion with only three justices dissenting - Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.)

- Even after a dangerous violent criminal has been convicted by a jury, the court system may not put the criminal in shackles for his sentencing hearing in front of the same jury unless he has exhibited signs of behaving violently in the court system before. (A 7-2 decision with only Scalia and Thomas dissenting.)

- Without any specific evidence of racial bias, the Supreme Court assumed Texas prosecutors were racists when they dismissed 10 of 11 blacks during jury selection. (A 6-3 ruling with only Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist dissenting).

[IRememberElian]

I've been wondering all day why I haven't heard any White House reaction to one of the most outrageous Supreme Court rulings in recent memory. I guess Bush isn't in any real danger of losing his Crawford ranch to a Wal*Mart building project, but he should show some outrage and some compassion for those less fortunate souls who will lose their property because of this horrible ruling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't about the only financial success of his previous life when he used similar tactics to get the taxpayers to build the band box the Rangers play in?

[to_zion]

That's what the 2nd is there for! Am I wrong? They'll put us in jail before we try that though.

[sirthomasthemore]

This is quite a tragedy. I certainly hope they were at least required to give Ms. Kelo compensation.

---

888

Wildcat, I read that Ms. Kelo said this isn't said and done yet. Get the muskets and pitchforks :}

[Checkers]

IRememberElian
Since Apr 17, 2005

[clee1]

You can't jail millions of people... and that is what it's coming down to.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

[Kay]

Yes, hope those landowners take a stubborn, peaceful stand. Let Janet Reno take 'em out. Ha.

The libs aren't in power any more so the landowners can sit tight.

[Kay]

Are you a conservative or a liberal? Be honest.

[sirthomasthemore]

jwalsh,

What happens in a small town, when the rich and powerful, maybe just don't like someone. What stops them from taking the guys poperty under the guise of community development?

[Dan from Michigan]

This is a big reason why we need to make sure we elect good people to local government. City Council and Mayor positions are more important now than even since they can now tear down your home to give a development present to the mayor's brother in law.........who is a developer.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't about the only financial success of his previous life when he used similar tactics to get the taxpayers to build the band box the Rangers play in?

I don't remember if anyone was forced out of their home against their will when the Rangers got their new stadium, but I'll tell you what I do remember...

I remember Elian Gonzalez being taken away in the middle of the night. I saw a couple of TV news reports back then that indicated Bush's campaign didn't want hearings into that raid because it wouldn't be beneficial to the campaign. Apparently, we've traded Elian Gonzalez for Alberto Gonzales, who is now Attorney General and is being rumored as the next Supreme Court justice. I have no confidence whatsoever that Gonzales would make the court any less liberal than it is now.

[sirthomasthemore]

Dan,
I live in Fairfield County Ct, that's southwest corner near NY. We're controlled by 6 or 7 multi, multi millionaire developers. There are just 7 surveying firms of any consequence in the area. The whole planning and zoning thing is all wrapped up in that cozy arrangement between public officials, developers and surveyors- the latter can steal your property with those little telescopes faster than John Gotti with machine guns.

Actually, the Courts were all one had for protection- and not even lower court judges for obvious reasons.

Now, the only real protection one might have is if the State legislators past laws restricting the use of eminent domain for urban renewal- but that's not going to happen in the socialist republic of CT.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

This is a big reason why we need to make sure we elect good people to local government. City Council and Mayor positions are more important now than even since they can now tear down your home to give a development present to the mayor's brother in law.........who is a developer.

You're exactly right. That's what makes this Supreme Court ruling so frustrating. There will always be corrupt people elected to office, and there will always be people who become corrupt after being elected into office. The courts are supposed to protect Americans from the actions of those people by enforcing the Constitution.

Especially on the local level, voters often don't have any idea who they're electing. Sometimes they'll even vote for someone because their name sounds nice or their picture in the voters' brochure looked pleasant.

The Supreme Court has failed us yet again - big-time.

[Kay]

I am so sorry for you. I truly hope there is a backlash to help your state.

Good grief, they made such a big deal about Erin Brock(whatever) going up against PG&E. This is also about the little guy versus the big guy.

[sirthomasthemore]

Well you should feel sorry for me, Kay. This State has past the first legislative weirdo civil union law, and so actually, my desire to protect my property is secondary to my desire to protect.. oh ..better left unsaid. :)

But, New London is up the coast about an hour and a half. But I would love to see those people hunker down in their houses and refuse to move- period.

In any event, it's 3:30; and I better get some shut eye.
I'll catch you on the board again, I'm sure. Take care.

[NonValueAdded]

I see very little mention that an existing "Italian Dramatic Club (a private cultural organization)" gets saved but "the homes of three plaintiffs in that parcel are to be demolished." That bit of land, parcel 4A is for unspecified "park support." To the homeowners, that means the government plans to pave their paradise and put up a parking lot!

If there was a thorough review of the alternatives, what happened to the alternative that preserved existing housing stock to the maximum extent practical? What gave priority to a dramatic club at the expense of private homes? (no need to answer that one!)

Well, I hope the BRAC proposal to shut down the remaining base facilities there makes Pfizer reconsider their participation, everyone pulls out since they think the economy will tank completely, and the city is left holding the bag. It would serve them right. Maybe GWB can propose a refinery to take the place of the sub base. That will boost the local economy. Somehow I don't think they'll go for it, though.

Incidentally, under the guise of "follow the money," while no one apparently benefited directly from this proposed taking, it might be interesting to look at land sales of the surrounding parcels that will also receive a boost in value due to the project. That might just prove to be interesting.

[nutmeg]

bttt

[jess35]

The administration was going to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the city of New London. They backed off under pressure from about 45 property rights groups that sent the President a letter asking the administration to stay out of it.

During the press briefing today, Scott McClellan played stupid.

[Outland]

"Breakdown of Justices:..."

More like a breakdown of justice.

[Joe Brower]

Anyone looking for insight into the bigger picture in what is happening here, this article is a must-read:

When Tyranny Came to America"

Print it. Study it. And pass it along. And pray it's not already to late to turn back the hellish tide of socialism that is sweeping across our nation at an ever-increasing pace.

[MagnoliaB]

I found this article:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/15/friedman-l.html

"One of the myths of our political system is that the Supreme Court has the last word on the scope and meaning of federal law. But time and time again, Congress has shown its dissatisfaction with Supreme Court interpretations of laws it passes--by amending or re-enacting the legislation to clarify its original intent and overrule a contrary Court construction.

The Supreme Court often insists that Congress cannot really "overrule" its decisions on what a law means: The justices' interpretation has to be correct since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land. But Congress certainly has the power to pass a new or revised law that "changes" or "reverses" the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to "overrule" a specific Court decision."

Sounds like the best thing would be for everyone to raise hell with their congressman and representatives about this. If enough people show their anger over this decision perhaps they will do something. I plan on contacting mine.

[goldstategop]

And here we thought the Left stood up for the Little Guy. It turns out they stand up for Big Corporations and Big Government. So much for private propety rights indeed.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[metesky]

The Ballad of Carl Drega

[doberville]

EXCELLENT question.

What sort of recourse do we have to overturn this monstrocity?

Perhaps at last the inert bottoms of our countrymen will vacate their sofas in self interest.

[doberville]

BUT. . .BUT. . .if he's a Liberal, he's INCAPABLE of being honest.

[Noachian]

I read the article at the web site you posted, http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/15/friedman-l.html, and found something wrong with it in the second paragraph.

This part isn't correct:" The justices' interpretation has to be correct since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land."

Anyone who is familiar with the Framers intentions in the Constitution knows that they never wanted judges to have the final word on legislation coming out of Congress. In fact they distrusted the judiciary so much that there was a debate as to whether or not to have one supreme Court over the state's Supreme Courts. They also put the control of the judicial branch under the authority of Congress -- not that Congress ever used it.

It was Chief Justice Marshall who started the process we know today as "Judicial Review" by saying "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." Since Congress backed down on that day we've been hostage to judges ever since. The writer of the article, Leon Friedman, must part of the legal industry who thinks the courts are the ultimate power in government and Congress merely gets in the of judges.

I suggest that you read Article 3 of The Constitution. There you'll find that the Supreme Court "...shall have appellate jurisdiction ...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." In other words the Congress has the power to overrule the Supreme Court's decisions -- they just don't do it. Congress also has the power to forbid the Supreme Court from hearing certain cases merely by wording their legislation to prevent it.

So, the real problems with an activist court lies in the hands of the Congress who has repeatedly refused to use their constitutional powers to regulate the courts.

Sounds like the best thing would be for everyone to raise hell with their congressman and representatives about this.

You're right about that, but Congress' inability to stand up to the courts has been going on for so long that it's become "business as usual" for the Representatives, and Senators, we send to Washington. If the people are ever to control the courts they must first control the Senate.

[Noachian]

What sort of recourse do we have to overturn this monstrocity?

One thing is certain, we can't keep amending the Constitution every time the court makes an unconstitutional ruling.

To stop the court's activism you have to go to the Congress who let it get out of hand in the first place. Congrss is the root of the problem.

Putting pressure on politicians, who will in turn pout pressure on the court, is the only way to stop this rogue court.