Posted on 06/24/2005 11:13:50 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Your home or business can be taken by force by local officials for virtually any reason, thanks to a long-awaited but misguided decision by a split Supreme Court on Thursday.
The 5-4 vote in Kelo v. the City of New London (Conn.) was not the type of decision that garnered widespread public attention, given that it dealt with a seemingly arcane piece of law. The question raised by the court was whether governments can use eminent domain to take land by force in order to promote economic development.
But the case is not arcane, and the ruling will literally change what it means to own property in this country. In Kelo, the justices obliterated the commonly held view of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Many Americans who don't even know what eminent domain means will certainly feel its sting, as governments have been given a carte blanche to take property, thus transferring even more land-use decisions from property owners to the government.
The Fifth Amendment states that individuals cannot "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The key issue in the Kelo case was the question of public use. Traditionally, governments have been able to use eminent domain to build genuinely public projects such as roads, bridges, schools, prisons and courthouses. That was what the founders had in mind when they drafted the amendment.
In 1954, however, the Supreme Court decided in Berman v. Parker that eminent domain could also be used for blight removal. The case revolved around efforts by the District of Columbia to use eminent domain to clear away a slum area. Since then, localities have become aggressively creative in their definition of blight.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Depends on perspective. Marxists embrace it, constitutional conservatives spit on it. Individual rights proponents hate it, collectivists love it. Constitutional republicans look on it as garbage, fascists as steak and fries.
What's your perspective?
But shouldn't that be a decision for local government which, in theory, is closest to the people of the community? Especially in a case like this where the state Constitution does not differ from the U.S. Constitution? The local government condemned property for redevelopment by a private developer. If the majority of the people are upset by this then they can vote the local government out of office, recall them, whatever. But let's say, for the sake of arguement, that the majority of the people in the area support the development. That the development produces a real benefit for all the people in the county through lower taxes or something like that. Is it fair or reasonable for Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court to be able to make the decision that they can't use eminent domain in that case rather than the local governments?
They received fair market value as determined by several independent appraisals of their property. Which, in most cases, was more than the developers paid since most of them got incentives to develop the property.
Or any property, really, not just land or homes ... cars, boats, shoes ... guns (they can try).
Constitutional conservatives would say that this is not a matter for the federal government but for state governments. That the 10th Amendment gives this decision to the states themselves. Or did I miss the part that says constitutional conservatives believe what you say they should believe.
I guess we can all look forward to Chairman Mao's General Store taking our homes whether we like it or not.
Time for some of these clowns on the Supremes to retire.
And with the Chicoms wanting to buy UNOCAL too, the only left for us to do is purchase "Chinese For Dummies" LOL
This is insane.
If it is wrong, then neither agency should do it. It is my understanding that the original ruling which defined the reasons for this evil act cited "urgent" needs only. Say for a hospital, fire station, etc., not for new condos, supermarkets, malls, stadiums and crap like that. I don't agree with it for any reason because I think it impedes the "property" rights protected by the constitution.
The Supreme Court just desecrated our Constitution. Now, shouldn't we be doing something about that?
Had the Supreme court ruled that the federal constitution governed only the federal government, constitutional conservatives would be overjoyed; but, that's not what they ruled. They ignored the explicit language of the Constitution and ruled that it's just swell for government to take the property of individual homeowners and give it to politically connected businesses.
"it won't be long before someone or some people barricaded inside their houses with their weapons"
So what? They'll just deploy tanks like they did in Waco.
No, there are better ways
The 14th Amendment says that nobody will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Since this case made it's way through the legal system to the U.S. Supreme Court then nobody can say that the plaintiffs were denied that. The 5th Amendment says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Identical language is contained in the Connecticut Constitution. The people were paid for their property so that isn't an issue. So the issue is what constitutes "public use". The Connecticut legislature passed a law stating that taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development project is a "public use" and in the "public interest". The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that that law was Constitutional. Since the state and federal Constitutionas are not in conflict then on what grounds should the U.S. Supreme Court be interpreting the Connecticut Constitution over the state supreme court?
My post on another thread on this ruling:
How far we have strayed from the philosophy and principles underlying liberty, as understood by America's Founders!!
"Our Ageless Constitution," Bicentennial Edition (1987), outlined many of those principles, one of which it titled, "Private Property Rights." Another section of this Bicentennial Volume dealt with the 200-year history of court and legislative decisions that eroded those principles.
One essay is reprinted below, with permission:
Private Property Rights -- A basic Premise Of America's Constitution
"Tired of having the fruits of their labors confiscated by an overpowering British government, America's Founders declared themselves free and independent.
"Most American schoolchildren can recite their claim that '. all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Less familiar, however, are these lines from their Declaration of Independence:
"'He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us, ... imposing taxes on us without our consent.'
"What, then, did the Founders consider to be the real cornerstone of man's liberty and happiness? On what basic premise did they devise their Constitution? Let them speak for themselves:
"John Adams: 'The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST.'
"James Madison: 'Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.'
"Their guiding principle was that people come together to form governments in order to SECURE their rights to property - not to create an entity which will, itself, 'take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned.' What was wrong for individual citizens to do to one another, they believed, was equally wrong for government to do to them.
"The right to own property and to keep the rewards of individual labor opened the floodgates of progress for the benefit of the entire human race. Millions have fled other countries to participate in the Miracle of America."
End of quoted material. Underlining emphasis added
As homes and schools have failed to study, understand, teach, and pass on the principles which produced a constitutionally limited power in the various levels of government, we see the constitution's protections eroded.
The 'redistribution of wealth' advocates of the past several decades, some of whom were dedicated to other philosophies, but many of whom were well-intentioned, have provided a gate by which tyranny and oppression threaten liberty.
America's Founders understood the human tendency to abuse power, and they meant for both elected and unelected persons with delegated power to be bound down by the "chains" (Jefferson) of the constitution. It is up to our courts, especially our Supreme Court, to heed Jefferson's admonition:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
As late as 1968, Justice Hugo Black's words constitute another wise warning:
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' view of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation."
This ruling reminds me of those old cowboy westerns where the widow's ranch is taken away by the evil banker. But this time the Supremes sing in favor of the banker.
What a F***ing joke.
"...Why is that a bad thing? ..."
You are being sarcastic right?
True. But just as the first amendment BANS congress from infringing on free speech etc., the fifth amendment BANS congress/govenment from the taking of land for other than public use and without just compensation. The fifth doesn't grant e.d. it enumerates the limits on it. So the ruling leaves a new interpretation of what contstitutes e.d.
The danger is that out of control politicians or just politicians in developers' pockets may be voted out of office but not before your land has been turned into a high rise.
"Soon, property owners will be classified as domestic terrorists, at this rate."
All they have to do is marry the gun registration database to those they want the property of and they will have an instant "right-wing racist militia kook" who needs a SWAT visit.
Because the plaintiffs claimed 5th Amendment violations. What the Supreme Court ruled by upholding the state court is that the states have the right to determine 'public use'. And why shouldn't they? States like Georgia and Utah have laws which define 'public use' more narrowly and which would prohibit transactions like that. Should the Supreme Court have the right to overturn those laws? Or isn't it the right of the state to set their own regulations?
Petition to impeach justices
http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html
My thoughts on the matter:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1429877/posts
The U.S. Constitution, like the Connecticut Constitution, says property can be condemned for public use with just compensation. The Connecticut legislature passed a law that said redevelopment like this was in the public interest and qualified as public use. The state Supreme Court upheld this legislation. Why should the U.S. Supreme Court overrule the state supreme court in this matter? It's a state issue, not a federal one.
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.