Posted on 06/23/2005 12:12:48 PM PDT by truth49
OLYMPIA—The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that local governments can seize private property for private development even when that property is not “put into use for the general public.”
Susette Kelo is a private homeowner in New London, Connecticut. When she and several other neighborhood residents refused to sell their property to the New London Development Corporation, a private developer, the city used its power of eminent domain to condemn the private homes and businesses.
Eminent domain is the legal authority for a governing body to confiscate private property for public use, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
New London officials announced plans to raze the homes in order to build high-end condominiums, a luxury hotel and several office buildings, arguing that private development serves a public interest in boosting economic growth.
Ed O'Connell, the lawyer for the New London Development Corporation, told The New York Times, "We need to get housing at the upper end, for people like the Pfizer employees."
The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine if the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement offered any protection for individuals like Kelo whose property is being condemned for the sole purpose of private economic development.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court deferred to the city and ruled against Kelo and other property owners. “The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion.
“In other words, the Court believes your property belongs to the highest bidder,” said Bob Williams, president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF). EFF was just one of a diverse group of property rights and individual liberty activists who filed 25 “friend of the court” amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging the justices to end the abuse of eminent domain.
“This decision is an unacceptable assault on the constitutional right to private property,” said Williams. “It means that no home, church or business is safe if government officials decide they have a better use for the property.”
He continued: “This decision also disenfranchises poor and middle class property owners who can’t afford to defend their homes.”
“Public interest groups like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation and the Institute for Justice will continue to fight for property rights, but citizens must demand that their state legislatures pass laws that ensure that every person’s home is truly his or her castle,” said Williams.
If the legislature does not take steps to protect property rights, Williams warned that “the people must do so themselves at the ballot box.”
Additional Information
Kelo v. City of New London
We need a constitutional amendment eliminating the Supreme Court.
TRAITORS!!!!!!!!!
The real question is, at what level does a ruling justify judicial Impeachment? Democraps could not standby, because this ruling hits everyone no matter what their political affiliation is!
it makes one wonder if our country's fathers should have john locke's provision for the right to own property in the Declaration of Independence, along with the right to life.
i guess they just figured something like this couldn't happen in this country, since an individual's right to own property has always been assumed.
Another snippet on this disaster for American rights of ownership ----
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut (search) residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (search) said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
-----
As we note the names of the supporting leftist activist justices. Yes, more power to the government at your expense of freedoms and protection of your property rights. If this does not SHOW TO THE WORLD what a platform for socialist judicial activism that the Supreme Court has become, they deserve what they are getting....SOCIALISM FOR THE UNITED STATES.
Chairman Mao's General Store coming to your backyard...
now where did I put that "Chinese For Dummies" book???
ain't it time for some of these Lefties with the Supremes to retire or die!!!
But then the legislatures could keep doing things like abusing eminent domain, and there'd be NO CHANCE to stop them with the courts ...
Disgusting. Our Constitution now has barely more practical meaning than those of China and the former USSR.
Believe it our not, the people are DU are as disgusted as we are at the ruling. The only thing different is they know it is their own people who made this ruling.
While talking with a friend shortly after this was announced he said almost the identical thing - and he is a Democrat. (but I don't hold that against him)
Start thinking about a campaign, people.. let your senators, congressmen know. Recourse would be by amendment. What a sickening decision.
It is time for Bush
to go to congress
with a simple request
that declares
to the court from the other two branches of government,
with regard to this ruling:
"go ahead, try to enforce it"
and then Bush should put federal marshalls in charge of protecting the private property about which the court made its ruling.
I'm actually glad to hear that. Like the FEC threatening to censor political websites, this isn't a left vs right issue, it's rent-seeking special interests against private individuals.
You forget that the Democrats only care about the victims of corporations, NOT victims of government.
This rulilng makes it easier for Corporations to get the help of goverment in any possible victimizing.
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.