Free Republic

Well over 500 attended, and the amount of flags (including many 'Don't Tread on Me' flags) and protest signs was incredible. People from at least a dozen states showed, Texas was the farthest I heard of, and yes the Freepers were there. The funny thing is, Freepers look just like everyone else, so it is hard to pick them out, except when the signs they were holding identify them as such (see some of the other FR postings for photos). A great time was had by all, including the opportunity to let the evil New London city councilors know what...

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The top Republican in the state House of Representatives gathered support Tuesday for a bill that would ban eminent domain for economic development projects. House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, collected about two dozen signatures from House members, including Republicans and some Democrats. All of them support voting on the legislation during a possible summer session planned in the coming weeks to consider bills vetoed by the governor. ... Fort Trumbull residents and their supporters rallied Tuesday at New London's city hall to call attention to their case. About 300 protesters, from as far away as...

Hundreds of folks turned out on the steps of New London's city hall to support the property owners in imminent danger of losing their homes to eminent domain. The crowd numbered in the hundreds, at least, and they and we were a boisterous lot with the favorite chant being, "LET THEM STAY". I would have changed it to "Tar and Feather Justice Souter and the 4 Theives" but I was overruled. At any rate it had a certain flavor of the 60's with an elderly folk guitarist writing and playing a song supporting property rights. I loved it. LOL A...

NEW LONDON, Conn. ...homeowners and New London officials are now turning their attention to the monetary value of houses and property being taken .... real estate prices have escalated in five years and Kelo and her neighbors will not profit from the increased value of their homes.... State law requires governments to compensate owners on the date of the taking, not its value in the current market. New London has technically owned the houses since 2000.... Because the city has technically owned the houses since 2000, its lawyers believe residents were living in the houses as tenants free of charge...

With Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gone from the Supreme Court, choosing her successor is NOT the most important task before us. More critical is reducing the damage a clueless and arrogant Court can do. Thankfully, there are signs that America is moving toward a new declaration of independence. The Court unleashed its latest shocker on June 23. In a 5-4 decision called Kelo vs. New London, the Court declared that it's okay for the government to seize your house just for the purpose of giving it to someone else. [snip] Only Congress is authorized to make laws or spend money....

Put yourself in the homeowner’s shoes. You buy a home for your family. Perhaps it’s even handed down from your father or grandfather. It’s a place you can afford in a neighborhood you like. The children have made friends. You intend to stay for the rest of your life. As you plant your garden, landscape the yard, put up a swing set for the kids, and mold your land into a home, unknown to you, certain city officials are meeting around a table with developers. In front of them are maps, plats and photographs — of your home. They talk...

The Supreme Court’s decision on Kelo vs. City of New London, erases the principle of private property from 200 years of American history. There can be no question that the founders intended private property to be secure from the arbitrary reach of government. The Constitution sets forth the legitimate purposes for which the government may own property (Article I, Section 8), and it stipulates the process by which private property must be acquired. Moreover, the Fifth Amendment requires that just compensation be paid, when private property is taken for public use. The key term here is "public use." Writing for...

The U.S. Supreme Court's Holding in Kelo v. City of New London: An Interview that Reveals an Insider's Perspective By JOHN W. DEAN ---- Friday, Jul. 01, 2005 On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a closely-watched 5-4 decision, found it constitutional, under the Takings Clause, for the State of Connecticut, and the city of New London, to condemn fifteen homes, owned by seven families, for "economic development." Although the owners had urged the Court to hold that the condemnation was not for "public use," as the Takings Clause requires, the Court held otherwise - and allowed the condemnation...

The New York Times welcomed the Supreme Court's recent endorsement of virtually unfettered eminent domain powers as "a setback to the 'property rights' movement." The fact that the Times not only celebrated a defeat for property rights but felt a need to put the phrase in scare quotes speaks volumes about the left-liberal misconceptions that have been brought to the fore by the Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. According to the Court, the Fifth Amendment, which allows the government to take property "for public use" provided it pays "just compensation," is a license to transfer any parcel of...

WEARE — Even as late as yesterday afternoon, residents here were scratching their heads over the commotion a one-page fax from thousands of miles away had caused Tuesday. "We're trying to collect taxes, not answering phones," said town clerk Evelyn Connor about what she said was a distraction from today's tax collection deadline. By yesterday afternoon, at least 50 different media outlets had called looking for comment. "We're too busy for this," she said, shaking her head. The commotion began yesterday when a fax came for Chip Meany, the town's building code enforcement officer. The letter, sent by Logan Darrow...

Michael Cristofaro, one of the Connecticut homeowners on the losing end of the Supreme Court's recent decision allowing a city government to seize residents' property for a private development, says his family and the six others are not about to give up their fight. Michael Cristofaro "If all fails, we'll chain ourselves to our houses," Cristofaro told "Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily RadioActive." "They'll have to rip us apart from it. We'll fight them tooth and nail." Cristofaro's family has lived in New London, Conn., for 43 years, but the 5-4 ruling last week allows the city to push ahead with its...

This week, the Supreme Court of the United States once again proved that it is a feckless, dictatorial and altogether ridiculous body. Its latest spate of decisions reveals legislative usurpation, disingenuous deference and silly inconsistency. But, of course, what else should we expect from the court that tells us our Constitution protects pornography but not political advertising, sodomy but not the Ten Commandments, and mentally disabled murderers but not private property? For those disinterested enough not to gasp in horror at each new judicial outrage, it is fascinating to watch as the Supreme Court gradually turns the Constitution on its...

Last week's U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. New London helps explain the socialist attack on President Bush's nominees to the federal bench. First, let's look at the case. The city government of New London, Conn., has run upon hard times, with residents leaving and its tax base eroding. Private developers offered to build a riverfront hotel, private offices and a health club in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But there was a bit of a problem. Owners of 15 homes in the stable middle-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood refused the city's offer to buy their homes, but no sweat....

Rally In New London The rally is going to happen! Fred Paxton was kind enough to send me this:FORT (For Our Rights Today) is holding a RALLY on Tuesday, July 5 at 6PM on the steps of City Hall on State Street in New London. There is a Parking Garage on the corner behind City Hall. Scott Bullock, the lead attorney from the Institute of Justice who argued the Kelo v New London case in front of the Supreme Court will be present. We are hoping to have a few other interesting speakers. Please do everything you can to be...

Major Announcement on Eminent Domain Abuse TIME/DATE: 10 a.m./Wednesday, June 29, 2005 PLACE: National Press Club, Zenger Room 529 14th Street NW, 13th Floor Washington, DC PARTICIPANTS: * Scott Bullock, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice * Dana Berliner, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice * Property Owners Who Stand to Lose Their Homes & Businesses Less than one week after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Kelo decision allowing governments to take property from the rightful owner only to hand it over to another private party for his or her private gain, the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the...

...To understand why Kelo is truly horrible, it is necessary to look both at Kelo and the constitutional logic of public use requirement. On the former, the declining economic fortunes of New London spurred the city elders to embark on a general urban development plan, underwritten by $73 million in state money devoted to general planning, physical infrastructure and environmental cleanup. The plan lacked only one ingredient -- some real live developer prepared to risk his own capital to build any office or hotel on part of the 90 or so acres the City already had. Not content with its...

The attorney who argued the landmark eminent domain case surveys the blight in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. A Reason interview. Tim Cavanaugh Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, represented the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark eminent domain case Kelo vs. City of New London. He spoke with Reason in the wake of yesterday's decision in favor of the city. Reason: Are you surprised by the decision? Scott Bullock: Well I was surprised. It was rather shocking that a majority of the Supreme Court would permit this type of abuse. We're...

"Liberal" Justices Turn Back Clock...To the Year 1215 Thomas M. Sipos You no longer own your own home or have the right to buy one. This is due to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, approved June 23. No, this amendment didn't pass both houses of Congress and three fourths of the state legislatures, in what is whimsically termed "the amendment process." Rather, our Constitution was amended in the usual way, by judicial fiat. In essence, five Supreme Court justices -- John Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy -- voted that you no longer own your own...

Memo To: President George W. Bush Cc: Karl Rove From: Jude Wanniski Re: The “Taking Clause” Erased To be honest, Mr. President, until the Supreme Court on Thursday announced its 5-to-4 decision limiting the property rights of all Americans, I assumed that upon the retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist you would not name Justice Clarence Thomas to fill that vacancy – and that you would probably be wise to avoid the controversy his nomination would bring. But after reading Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion in the New London, Conn. case, I think his wisdom, his judgment and his perspective so clearly...