Posted on 08/03/2005 11:00:42 AM PDT by grassboots.org
CRITICISM of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelo vs. New London, which permitted the Connecticut city to seize several homes to clear the way for a proposed economic revitalization plan, has become personal. According to an Associated Press article published last week and an article in the July 16 edition of the Union Leader, “people from across the country are joining a campaign to seize Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter’s farmhouse to build a luxury hotel.”
Justice Souter did not write the decision in Kelo, but he joined Justice Stevens’ majority opinion....More ominously, the campaign to punish Justice Souter personally is the latest instance of a troubling recent trend of threats directed at judges who issue controversial decisions.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “private property” shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Kelo case involved only the question whether New London’s redevelopment plan, ...constituted a public use.
A sharply divided court concluded that it was...
First, criticism of the decision has almost universally omitted the crucial fact that the city of New London is now obliged to pay the homeowners “just compensation.” ... but an argument that they therefore shouldn’t have to relinquish their homes is an argument against the very existence of the eminent domain power itself — which the Constitution presupposes to exist — not against the court’s decision in Kelo....
Unfortunately, the criticism of the justices — and the campaign against Justice Souter, in particular — is part of a larger pattern of blending criticism of judges who issue controversial decisions with outright threats. Surely we should not legitimize the approach of Rep. Tom DeLay and Sen. John Cornyn, who have suggested that retaliation is an appropriate response to judicial decisions with which we disagree....
(Excerpt) Read more at theunionleader.com ...
Crucial fact???? That was not the issue before the court, so that is hardly a crucial fact. The ONLY crucial fact is the Supreme Court redefined 'public use' to mean private development, that is where the Constitution was raped of meaning.
And the state gets to decide what "just compensation" is...?
I'm surprised. I always thought the Union Leader was a conservative paper. In any case, Souter has done enough damage on the Court that he deserves anything that may be coming to him.
Oh sure trying to build on the peons land is Constitutional, but, use the same rules for trying to build on one of the 9 great mullahs land and it's a threat.
Horse pucky....no one is threatening Souter.
It's all getting the story out, Mr. Smith. Just the way you are doing right now...using a bit of propaganda to make your point seem a bit more sinister. What a flippin' hypocrite.
Hope they put your place up for eminent domain, too.
And the best way to do it is to turn his home into a motel/museum.
They were always required to pay "just compensation" under the fifth amendment. What is disgusting is the willful twisting of the meaning of the phrase "public use". Thansferring property from one private "owner" to another private "owner" is not "public use".
How do you define what is "just compensation" when you have a gun to your head?
"Just compensation" is the price you and the would-be developer agree on. If your price is too high, he'll move on to a better location.
There are few people who would refuse to sell at any price. If a developer wants to put a shopping center where your house sits, you should have the right to get the best price you can get, or otherwise refuse to sell. Demanding a high price for your property is not an abuse; if your house sits on valuable land that is not abuse but serendipity. That is what any real estate investor hopes to do, buy a piece of land that will someday be worth more than anyone expected.
Extending eminent domain to normal commercial land deals is a way of avoiding the need to negotiate a voluntary transaction. With eminent domain, some expert decides what is a fair price. Without it, you and the hopeful buyer decide what is fair. Its the difference between theft and liberty.
Interesting spin on the truth here. Like maybe 180 degrees off?
I do no believe that public use equates to raising more tax money for the Government to spend and I do not believe that the founders believed this either.
criticism of the decision has almost universally omitted the crucial fact that the city of New London is now obliged to pay the homeowners “just compensation.”
No, I think everyone understands that. However, who decides what is "just compensation"... in cases where private individuals sell to other private individuals this should be the decision of the seller not just the buyer. Otherwise - no deal.
According to a University of New Hampshire poll, 93 percent of New Hampshire voters disagreed with the Kelo decision. Accordingly, we can confidently predict that New Hampshire citizens would not want their representatives to approve a redevelopment plan like the one approved in New London.
That being said, I would hope the state legislature would take up the task of preventing the abuses that shall surely result from this decision.
Peter, Peter, Peter - perhaps you should read some of the dissenting opinions and apply some common sense. Even Sandy Day got it right when she said that under the Kelo ruling, no private property is safe because any option that insinuates a possibility of higher tax revenues now qualifies as "public use".
The Union Leader is probably the most conservative paper in New England. This was "guest commentary" - not an editorial.
In Passaic, New Jersey, an elderly man owned a vacant lot that the town decided to confiscate.
They condemned his property, sold it for $60,000 to a private developer, then presented him with a check for the "fair market" price of $15,000.
He took them to court, but lost because the government decided that the government acted fairly.
You just have to wonder what the writer would feel like if the government decided to seize his dwelling.
Just compensation, as determined by a judge who is on the public payroll, or a jury comprised of people who pay taxes. If the price is so fair, then why do they need the barrell of a gun to persuade the homeowner to sell?
What a pantload. This isn't punishment or a threat, it's just making Souter eat the crap that he's saying is good enough for me to eat.
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.