Eminent Domain (essay by Fred Thompson)

I'm with Fred ^ | 07/30/07 | Fred D Thompson

[SE Mom]

Last week, California officials in National City voted unanimously to use eminent domain to take over more than 600 properties—including a nonprofit youth center dedicated to keeping local kids out of gangs and off the street. They plan to give this land to local private developers for a group of condominiums.

It’s said that a man’s home is his castle, but across America some property owners are being rooked by local bureaucrats and politicians and having their private property confiscated by local governments for the supposed public good.

Most people probably think that if they buy a home or a small business that they will get to keep what they purchased. After all, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

But in 2005, the Supreme Court, in Kelo v. New London, held that the government could take private property – even a person’s home – and give that property to a large private corporation for that business’s private use. As Justice O’Connor wrote in her scathing dissent, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded – i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process.”

Not surprisingly, the public responded to Kelo with outrage. Since then, numerous states passed legislation aimed at curbing an abuse of eminent domain powers. In the 2006 election cycle, 12 states held referendums proposing to limit state governments’ abilities to confiscate property a la Kelo. Ten states approved the proposals, each with strong majorities.

...

[ejonesie22]

Man, I am on fire today!

Is that three or four victims so far...

Don’t worry, I am a professional, do not attempt this level of sarcasm at home...

[ejonesie22]

You were not kidding, I have gotten several so far...

Hell, it was so good, even I almost put a Ron Paul sticker on my car at lunch...

[SE Mom]

You too! Summer..hardly any time for Fredhead Freeping:)

[FreeReign]

I thought Fred was for State solutions to these sort of issues. Why is he now advocating a Federal fix?

Read what Fred said.

Excerpt:Now, nearly two weeks ago, members of both parties in Congress introduced legislation in the House that would deny federal economic funding to state and local governments upon a finding that those governments had abused their power of eminent domain by seizing private property that would be used for private economic development. This is an important issue, and Members of Congress need to act to make sure that federal funds are not used to enable these sorts of takings of private property. Another option would be the reissuance of President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12630, which directs federal agencies to “first do no harm” to property rights when issuing new regulations.

Fred is talking about the limiting of Federal money.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Ping.

[LexBaird]

Fred is talking about the limiting of Federal money.

Is he? It looks to me like he is advocating withholding funding of "economic programs" (whatever they may be) if States don't comply with a Federally determined level of "abuse" (whatever THAT may be).

Either the Feds should not be funding these programs at all (my preference), or they should not be putting mandates on programs they are Constitutionally unable to legislate directly, in order to receive the funds. The SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has no say in this.

This is exactly how the Feds gained undue control of the education system: by first taxing away the money, then offering it back with strings attached. It allows them to get around the 10th A. with the "General Welfare" clause. Another example is using the withholding of highway funds to force the 55MPH limit on all the States.

Now, take the case of Roe v Wade. The Kelo case was ruled exactly how Fred has advocated abortion should be decided; i.e. the Feds should butt out and let the several States decide. Suppose that were to happen, and then Congress decided to withhold funding for all medical programs that didn't fund abortions?

Now, either Fred T is consistent on this philosophy, or he isn't and is just preaching populism to the choir. Is it because Kelo is unpopular with the base and a goodly amount of the middle, that he is for Federal intervention there? Or does he truly think the Congress should use the power of the Fed purse to shape State laws?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I thought Fred was for State solutions to these sort of issues. Why is he now advocating a Federal fix? How can the Federal govt. intervene in something that the SCOTUS has declared legal under the Constitution? How can Congress decide the States had abused a power by doing something that has been declared to NOT be an abuse?

So, help me out here Fredheads: is he for the Feds intervening in the way States run things or not?

Because of the 14th amendment. The federal government has protected the property rights of each US citizen since 1868.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (14th Amendment, ppg. 1)

Essentially, the States cannot use federalism arguments to abridge the rights which each citizen ALREADY had under the first 10 amendments since 1791, with respect to abridgement by the Federal government. In essence, this paragraph simply tells the States that they cannot violate the natural rights of the citizenry which the federal Constitution protects at the federal level. Perhaps redundant since most of the State constititions already protected the same rights (generally speaking), but I don't thinka very strong case can be made that using the 14th amendment is "anti-federalism" in the same sense that mandating education requirements or using highway funds as a carrot-and-stick is.

[FreeReign]

Fred is talking about the limiting of Federal money.

Is he? It looks to me like he is advocating withholding funding of "economic programs" (whatever they may be) if States don't comply with a Federally determined level of "abuse" (whatever THAT may be).

Either the Feds should not be funding these programs at all (my preference), or they should not be putting mandates on programs they are Constitutionally unable to legislate directly, in order to receive the funds. The SCOTUS has ruled that Congress has no say in this.

Look. If you want to say that Fred hasn't taken the Federalist position of advocating the elimation of federal funds for economic programs, fine.

However until that Federalist utopia is achieved, any limiting of Federal funds for any unConstitutional program is the Federalist position.

Now, take the case of Roe v Wade. The Kelo case was ruled exactly how Fred has advocated abortion should be decided; i.e. the Feds should butt out and let the several States decide. Suppose that were to happen, and then Congress decided to withhold funding for all medical programs that didn't fund abortions?

Congress shouldn't be funding medical programs, period. Any limitation on Federal funds for such programs is the Federalist position.

[montag813]

You were not a Thompson supporter before this. Here’s a comment you made BEFORE his announcment of SA as his co-campaign manager...

So I called Fred and his son out on their feeding on the public trough. So what? As my quote of Hyman Roth indicated ("this is the business we've chosen"), I know and accept that is the messy reality of Washington politics. I don't love it, and it does smell bad what cash his son has gotten. But I still believe Fred Thompson is by far the best (potential) candidate.

I notice you two have neglected to quote any of my numerous prior POSITIVE posts regarding Fred, and my posting 2 months ago of this picture I created...

DARE TO DREAM!

You do your candidate a disservice by selectively quoting me. Be a Fred fan, but please don't be a FredBot. If we have learned anything from Bush it is the danger of blind adherence. If it is true that Fred has hired Spencer Abraham as "Campaign Chairman" or even senior adviser, it was WRONG, and he should reverse that decision.

[montag813]

Not to mention the 13 spent fuel rods and 46 sharpies he smuggled out when he was Sec. of Energy...

Sarcasm. Is that supposed to make me forget his support for Hizbollah?

[LexBaird]

Because of the 14th amendment. The federal government has protected the property rights of each US citizen since 1868.

Sorry. In Kelo, the SCOTUS determined that such economic takings did not violate the 5th or 14th A. They said it was up to the States to limit or outlaw such takings. Now, Fred is advocating that the Congress, via economic sanctions, force the States to do so.

While I believe, given Kelo, the States SHOULD do so, I don't think it is Congress' place to make them do so.

[montag813]

Do you know the difference between "campaign manager" and "campaign chairman"? Not that Fred has a "campaign, yet.

Oh I'm sorry. I guess the "Chairman" just mops the floors, right? How silly of me! No problem at all if the campaign janitor supports Hizbollah, CAIR and Hamas. I actually thought there was some significance to the hire. So sorry!

[ejonesie22]

You forget, obviously not...

The rest of us will keep it in perspective....

[Clara Lou]

In other words, you don’t. Thanks!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

While I believe, given Kelo, the States SHOULD do so, I don't think it is Congress' place to make them do so.

I do. The 14th amendment guarantees that constitutional rights apply equally across the States, which also puts it within Congress' purview to make laws which uphold the Constitution on this point.

[ejonesie22]

I think he had some bad Hummus once.

If it is not just right it can taint your views of all things Mediterranean...

[LexBaird]

Look. If you want to say that Fred hasn't taken the Federalist position of advocating the elimation of federal funds for economic programs, fine.

However until that Federalist utopia is achieved, any limiting of Federal funds for any unConstitutional program is the Federalist position.

...Any limitation on Federal funds for such programs is the Federalist position.

No. it isn't. You are rationalizing. It is not in the interest if the separation of powers between the Fed and State for the Fed to force the States to do something by economic blackmail. If Congress rewards some States with money and punishes others with withholding that money unless certain behaviors are performed, that is the antithesis of Federalism. It concentrates more power in the Fed hands, not less, because the money is taxed away regardless of the State action. It can only be (partly) recovered by conforming to Fed mandates.

The trouble with advocating this approach for eminent domain issues is that the same approach can be used by Congress to force any issue by requiring adherence to Federal mandates. The EPA, for example. Or the Education Dept. Or HUD. Much more land has been effectively taken by the Endangered Species Act than all of the Kelo type cases combined.

[Clara Lou]

Ahh—the trots. No wonder.

[montag813]

In other words, you don’t. Thanks!

Hizbollah. Does it ring a bell? Let me give you a few hints...

October 26th, 1983. 241 U.S. Servicemen. DEAD.

Sound familiar?

Ok, now how about this...In July 2000, Abraham sought over $268 million in tax-funded USAID grants for Hezbollah terrorist-controlled Southern Lebanon. They ended up getting $86 million of your taxpayer dollars. Yes I have a serious problem with this man.

If Fred hires Arlen Specter next as "Vice-Chairman", will you yell at me for criticizing that too?

[Non-Sequitur]

Since then, numerous states passed legislation aimed at curbing an abuse of eminent domain powers. In the 2006 election cycle, 12 states held referendums proposing to limit state governments’ abilities to confiscate property a la Kelo. Ten states approved the proposals, each with strong majorities.

One of the states which did not was California, defeating a Proposition 90 in 2006 that would have prevented using eminent domain in cases like this. If states are free to vote to tighten the laws regarding the use of eminent domain, as they should be, then why shouldn't they free to allow for a broader definition and use of eminent domain powers in cases like National City did? Shouldn't their laws reflect the wishes of their people so long as they do not conflict with the federal Constitution?