Eminent Domain Amendment

kerrythomas.com ^ | December 6, 2005 | Kerry Thomas

[mukraker]

As you know, on June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court made a startling ruling in the case of Kelo v. New London (docket #04-108). In that case, the Supreme Court interpreted the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution in such a way that now anyone’s private property can be taken by a government body and given to a private developer, in an effort to increase the government’s tax base.

The 5th Amendment reads in part “...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensa.” The Court ruled 5-4 that the “public use” requirement of the 5th Amendment would be met as long as the increased tax base from the new development would result in greater tax revenue to the local government.

Because this ruling puts ALL private property in the United States in jeopardy of being seized, it is now necessary to amend our United States Constitution, in an attempt to limit this broad new power that has been granted local governments. To that end, the following is proposed:

Eminent Domain Amendment To The United States Constitution

“No Private Property acquired for Public Use shall be sold, given, leased, rented or otherwise conveyed to any non-Public entity without written permission of the private property owner from whom the property was acquired for public use. If said former private property owner is deceased, the written permission of all current heirs must be acquired.”

If you ever hope to be secure in your private property rights, an amendment like this one is needed – now.

But such a move to amend the Constitution must begin at the grass roots level. No career politician will support such an amendment without broad popular support.

This will be a long process. But the sooner we begin, the sooner our private property rights will be restored.

Our court system has proven it cannot be relied upon to ensure that our private property rights are protected. It will take a Constitutional amendment to force the courts to uphold what once was thought to be a guaranteed right to private property ownership in America.

[GeronL]

I suppose they thought that was just something that was obvious

[TeleStraightShooter]

Would the proposed amendment address only federal exercises of Eminent Domain, or would it include the States?

[Constantine XIII]

Aw, you just wanna shoot stuff.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. =)

[herewego]

bookmark

[Myrddin]

The problem is in the word "public use." A local government acquires private property for what they say is a public use, but then, once they own the property, they can sell it to a private developer.

The defect is that "public use" has morphed into "public benefit". Public benefit has been interpreted to mean improved tax revenues. Public use originally meant right of way for roads or other common use properties owned by the government. It has been perverted.

[Political Junkie Too]

Why do we need an Eminent Domain amendment to the Constitution? Why do we need each state to pass an Eminent Domain prohibition law? Why do we need Congress to pass an Eminent Domain prohibition law?

Can't we take another eminent domain case, say the new Florida case, and fast-track it to the Supreme Court to let them have a do-over? I'm hoping that the Supreme Court didn't anticipate this rush to abuse eminent domain after their Kelo ruling. The Florida case is massive in its scope of displaced people. I know "old Florida." These homes aren't blights, they are the original home designs from the era that housed the people that made Florida the popular place that it is today. I especially like the comment from the person on Hannity and Colmes last night who said "The view is too good for the people who live there." They have the misfortune of owning the houses on the intra-coastal, but they don't own the yachts that others would like to berth there.

Can't the Supreme Court take another eminent domain case and reverse themselves and settle the matter that way, withouth forcing a new hodge-podge of legislation?

[ridesthemiles]

From New London CT to Riveria Beach FL to Oakland CA and everywhere in between our once-secure private property rights have been stripped by the Supreme Court. It's time We, the People, reclaim our rights.""

Heard Sean Hannity today trying to question the "maoyr"?? of Riveria Beach Fla about taking hundreds of properties to build new ones that would produce more revenue.

The guy talked in circles, over and over again. Sean had a hard time pinning him down to anything. All he could say was "we need the money". How this puke got elected is beyond me. Makes more sense than ever to know WHO you are electing to ANY post in your government.