Posted on 07/30/2007 7:25:44 AM PDT by 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.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at fredfile.imwithfred.com ...
" Our Founders placed respect for private property as a key principle when writing out nation’s Constitution, and the protection of private property resulted in the United States becoming the greatest economic power in the world and a beacon of freedom to all. This principle is even more important today, as homeownership has become an increasingly integral part of our citizens’ aspirations for a better future for themselves and their loved ones. If the Supreme Court will not protect our right to ownership, then political leaders must step up to the challenge"
Fred:)
Fred’s on a roll, what with the Federalism essay, and now this one.
There is no way a “true conservative” could vote for this man....
ROFLMAO:) Here it comes...
I saw him kick a puppy last night also...
Frederalism!?
BTTT
Yep - and don’t miss this one on Hazleton- maybe it will give the “but Fred’s soft on illegal immigrants” people something to think about :)
http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/hazelton-immigraton-decision/
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.
Not knocking Fred, he is on the right side here. But if he believes that this legislation will change anything he is wrong.
The key is in the "upon a finding" requirement. Who's is going to determine abuse? The COURTS. Who has already said it's not abuse? The COURTS.
A legislative piece of fluff to keep the local loud people quiet for a little while.
I like Fred. It's my belief he is the only one saying what needs said. But he better starting taking whatever anyone on the House or Senate says or does for what it normally is: Pandering for votes and power.
good one
California is NOT one of them, thanks in large part to Arnold campaigning against the measure as a payback to (in a weird congruence) both enviral groups and developers.
The developers wanted to keep doing business like the deal in the article. The enviros didn't want to have to pay up when land was rendered worthless by their lobby laws.
No, it’s not the politicians that need to step up. It’s the many, many millions of armed citizens that need to step up.
As a supporter of Fred Thompson I have one question: Is it true or not that Fred has hired Spencer Abraham as his “Campaign Manager” or senior adviser? If so, then I can no longer support Fred. Spencer Abraham is a detestable fellow who has been a stauch enemy of Israel and supporter of Hizbollah—a group which has the blood of 241 American Marines on its hands. Abraham has championed Muslim radicals from CAIR to Hamas in order for them to gain credibility within U.S. government circles, later embarrassing the President. He is a disgrace. Say it isn’t so, Fred. If Abraham is on board, then my checkbook will remain firmly closed to your campaign.
Thank you, I am humbled by your support...
Thank you, I am humbled by your support...
did you read the article?
*%$#! Computers...
It’s me man...
Do I really need the sarcasm tag by now...
;-)
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.