Posted on 07/05/2005 6:21:36 PM PDT by oblomov
HARTFORD, Conn. -- The top Republican in the state House of Representatives gathered support Tuesday for a bill that would ban eminent domain for economic development projects.
House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, collected about two dozen signatures from House members, including Republicans and some Democrats. All of them support voting on the legislation during a possible summer session planned in the coming weeks to consider bills vetoed by the governor.
...
Fort Trumbull residents and their supporters rallied Tuesday at New London's city hall to call attention to their case.
About 300 protesters, from as far away as Kentucky, Maryland and New Jersey, gathered in advance of a City Council meeting at which residents asked that the decision to take the property be reversed.
(Excerpt) Read more at stamfordadvocate.com ...
Deceptive headline - the issue isn't being revisited, elected representatives are contemplating exercising their legislative powers to limit the use of this power. This is what they should be doing.
Any FReepers there?
---
I would hope!
of possible interest:
commentary, articles, links etc...:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm
Looks like the state legislators can read the writing on the wall - and would rather make abuse of eminent domain illegal, than to one day have themselves put up against said wall while wearing blindfolds and smoking cigarettes.
Bump.
How does Speaker Jim Amann stand on this? Without him nothing will pass.
We'll all be lucky and thankful if legislators can ever read the writing. I would like to see eminent domain go the way of the dinosaur... and feudalism - which is where it came from.
"About 300 protesters, from as far away as Kentucky, Maryland and New Jersey,"
I am in awe.
Bump.
So right you are! If it happens at all, don't forget the government will bring out the armies against its own people if need be. Militia's are no longer in vogue.
Same rally?
Same rally but we couldn't get in to the meeting.
You guys did great right where you were!
My hat's off to all y'all! ;o)
Great news. The next step is to get the local rascals voted out of office.
" About 300 protesters "
That's all ? What does it take to get folks off their couches ?
Way to go, guys.
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 realted issues for about a decade. I even had brief, sparate 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.
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 realted 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.