High court hits new low

The Supreme Court’s decision on Kelo vs. City of New London, erases the principle of private property from 200 years of American history. There can be no question that the founders intended private property to be secure from the arbitrary reach of government. The Constitution sets forth the legitimate purposes for which the government may own property (Article I, Section 8), and it stipulates the process by which private property must be acquired. Moreover, the Fifth Amendment requires that just compensation be paid, when private property is taken for public use.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens said, "...this Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the...public." Further, he said, "...this [New London development] plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment."

There is a difference between "public use" and "public purpose." Had the founders intended to grant government the power to take private property for a public purpose, they would have said so. But they didn’t. They said public use. The Court - not the founders, not Congress, not any elected representatives of the people - changed the meaning of the Constitution. Government can now take private property for any purpose it describes as a "public purpose."

Close to my thoughts on the subject. Depressing, isn't it?

Not if "we the people" decide it's time to fight (socially, political, actively, physically if need be) to secure our constitution from the usurping overreaching inacting bogus laws of the SC.! Or any other court for that matter!

Bush better be listening to the people and make a strict constitutionalist appointment and stand firmly on it!

People are sick of these lawyering prix on this court!

Thomas Jefferson

Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure. our Convention has been too much impressed by. . .

Bump. Thanks for this post. Bravo!

It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.

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.