Posted on 06/28/2005 9:25:21 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Last week's U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. New London helps explain the socialist attack on President Bush's nominees to the federal bench. First, let's look at the case.
The city government of New London, Conn., has run upon hard times, with residents leaving and its tax base eroding. Private developers offered to build a riverfront hotel, private offices and a health club in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But there was a bit of a problem. Owners of 15 homes in the stable middle-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood refused the city's offer to buy their homes, but no sweat. The city turned over its power of eminent domain -- its ability to take private property for public use -- to the New London Development Corporation, a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. The city condemned the homeowners' properties. The homeowners sued and lost in the state court, and last week they lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The framers of our Constitution gave us the Fifth Amendment in order to protect us from government property confiscation. The Amendment reads in part: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Which one of those 12 words is difficult to understand? The framers recognized there might be a need for government to acquire private property to build a road, bridge, dam or fort. That is a clear public use that requires just compensation, but is taking one person's private property to make it available for another's private use a public purpose? Justice John Paul Stevens says yes, arguing, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government."
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, saying, "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public." She added that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power." In other words, state and local officials can now take your home for another private person to use so long as they can manufacture an argument that the latter use is more beneficial to the public.
Let's look at a few examples of how this might play out. You and your neighbor have two-acre lots. Your combined property tax is $10,000. A nursing home proprietor tells city officials that if they condemn your property and sell it to him to build a nursing home, the city would get $30,000 in property taxes. According to last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, this plan would be construed as beneficial to the public, and you'd have no recourse. Similarly, an environmental group might descend on public officials to condemn your land and transfer it to the group for a wildlife preserve. Again, a contrived public benefit for which you'd have no recourse.
The Court's decision helps explain the vicious attacks on any judicial nominees who might use framer-intent to interpret the U.S. Constitution. America's socialists want more control over our lives, property and our pocketbooks. They cannot always get their way in the legislature, and the courts represent their only chance. There is nothing complex about those 12 words the framers wrote to protect us from governmental property confiscation. You need a magician to reach the conclusion reached by the Court's majority. I think the socialist attack on judicial nominees who'd use framer-intent in their interpretation of the Constitution might also explain their attack on our Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why? Because when they come to take our property, they don't want to risk buckshot in their butts.
Any time a liberal tries to make the claim that something is not a liberal vs conservative issue, it is because they know that the issue makes their side look bad.
That's two of the three things socialist dictatorships go after first. The third is your right to practice your faith. Rut Row! I forgot! The libs have been going after that too!!
God bless Clarence Thomas.
At first, I wondered if the battle to confirm Clarence Thomas was worth it. Today, I have high admiration and respect for him. His actions as a Supreme has made me very proud.
.....and they always come out of the woodwork, when these issues are on the front pages.
Also, I've been noticing for months now, Paul, how superior, and higly educated your comments are! Keep up the commentary! As Hannity would say, "We need you now more than ever!"
Thanks, Paul, for your lively involvement in so many good threads!
Char :)
I wonder how long before Governments in California will use this to get around Prop. 13.
These vermin liberals won't be happy until they have Killery in the White House "taking things away from you, for the common good!"
In many cases the "developers" are given a suspension of property taxes for several years. So the tax angle is mostly bullhockey. And the big one: Those 5 justices do NOT believe as they want us to think. They truly want to stick it to the public and benefit the socialists.
How right he is...........and how wrong was this decision.
The bottom line: any attempt to confiscate my property - any of it - will get you very dead. What part of that message don't they understand?
None of it.
Better start a full court press to defend the 2nd Amendment, then........because they're going to be "gunning" for that one before long. Excuse the pun.
Thanks for your strong, resolute, determined reaction to this loathsome SCOTUS decision, which Walter Williams correctly says needed a "magician" to reach such a conclusion!
Char :)
This is a frightening decision by the Supreme Court along with several other of their recent decisions.
A good article by WW. He nails it well.
Give the crooks a little more credit. Can you say..."Special Assessment Districts" worked in my neighborhood, to the tune of $1,200.00 a year in one step.
Bump to read when awake...
Can the conservatives use this to get around the endangered species act???? I mean if rich republicans want to build hotels and destroy wetlands????? Wouldn't the libs be screaming all the way to the bank....
Aw, gee! I'm blushing here. Thank you, and for everything that you do.
Bump for Walter, property rights and the RTKABA.
Joanie, Please repost your post re: this SCOTUS decision here. I think you and Williams have the best take. TIA.
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.