Posted on 06/25/2005 12:42:58 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
"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 home. That's the result of Kelo v. City of New London, in which, according to dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas: "The court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."
That's right. A whole Constitutional clause, a clause that protected your property from arbitrary government expropriation, erased by five justices. At least with flag burning, the issue is undergoing the official amendment process.
But to understand Kelo, let me first give you some historical background. Back in olden days, all land was owned by a "sovereign," that is, a king, tsar, pope, or emperor. This sovereign leased his land to vassals, i.e., lords, barons, knights, and other titled nobility. Vassals could use the land so long as they served the sovereign. (See the bargain struck in the movie, Excalibur.) Because the sovereign owned the land, he could always repossess it.
In 1215, the English nobles decided this was a bad deal. They asked King John to sign Magna Carta, restricting his ability to reclaim the land. King John agreed, mostly because the nobles had brought plenty of swords. Peasants still owned no land, but the times, they were a changin'.
A big change occurred in 1776, when Americans decided that "the people" were sovereign, owning the land and the powers to govern it and themselves. In 1789, they delegated some of those powers to the government via the Constitution, while also restricting those powers through the ten Bill of Rights. For instance, the Fifth Amendment says: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Thus, "the people," being sovereign and owning all the land, can, through their elected representatives, take your property, but only if (1) the taking is for a "public use" (traditionally, a road, school, or other public project), and (2) you're paid "just compensation" (theoretically, fair market value).
With Kelo, according to Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court "erased" the Public Use Clause. Now government can take your property for any reason at all.
In Kelo, the city of New London, CT, had condemned 15 homes so that private developers may build offices, a hotel, pricier homes, and a pedestrian path along the Thames River. The homeowners sued the city, trying to save their homes by arguing that private development was not a public use. The city said it was, because offices and pricier homes would generate more tax revenue.
The Supreme Court agreed with the city.
Justice Stevens wrote: "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government. ... [T]here is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
But if private use is a public use, and public use is a public use, then everything is a public use -- and the Public Use Clause has no meaning. As Justice O'Connor said in her dissent: "Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive use of her property? ... 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. ... Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Is she right? With the Public Use Clause erased, what will prevent the state from replacing any home or business with a "nicer" business? Nothing but the good intentions of back room politicians. Seriously. According to Justice Stevens, the very cities and states condemning the land can best determine "local public needs," and their judgements are "entitled to our deference."
That's like letting the accused decide whether he's guilty.
The result is that politically-connected developers can now use state muscle to force those of modest income to sell their homes at below market rates, while wealthy homeowners are protected by their own political clout. (I say "at below market rates," because if developers paid homeowners their asking price -- the true definition of "market rate" -- there'd be no need to condemn land, as every owner has his price). As Justice O'Connor put it: "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."
So it seems the times are a changin' again. Only now we're going backwards, to about 1215, when only nobles could protect their land from the king, the peasants at the mercy of both. And ironically, it's the more "liberal" justices who are turning back the clock.
well, written, I like their angle.
http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm
More thoughts on this.
And, more thoughts on the founding of the United States and why property rights are the ONLY reason we became the most succesful, powerful, and freest nation in the history of the world:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/foundingoftheunitedstates.htm
Solutions?
Tax payers protest?
great now the cities can take out the high crime areas and make a decent for human habitation
Congressman Billybob
"great now the cities can take out the high crime areas and make a decent for human habitation"
That is not what will happen and you know it.
Are you being sarcastic? Do you really trust the government to decide what constitutes a "high crime area"? Wouldn't a high crime area be an area that is victimized by crime, rather than populated 100% by criminals?
not to take away from the idiocy of the Supremes in this case and others, but the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to State action anyway -- it took the activism of the "incorporation" doctrine to make it seem like it does -- its time for states to reassert their (sometimes) wise authority and themselves put strict limits on eminent domain
The Constitution is dead.
There is no law.
The cops are just another gang.
Welcome to Sherwood Forest.
There's no irony in this at all. Liberals are basically socialists who are more comfortable with a dictatorial style of government. Returning to the middle ages wouldn't phase them at all.
As for the recent opinion in Kelo v New London I'd like to see just one senator stand up and ask the Supremes to re-asset that ruling, and if they didn't then introduce a bill that would overrule the court's Kelo opinion.
It's long past time to rein in the judiciary. If it's not done now when will it be done?
The same mindsets that brought you Waco, RubyRidge, and Elian are now freed from all those silly pretexts.
Given the self-serving gutlessness of 95% of those in politics, jury nullification seems the only grassroots weapon.
You never did own your home..
How can they tax something you OWN.?.
Everybody rents.. from somebody or something(Gov't)..
If currency is money why do they call it/them "BILLS"
Texas is headed that way, Utah passed an amendment BEFORE this ruling, evidently percieving that the SCOTUS would rule this way, and McClintock(sp?) in California is pushing for an amendment also. We have the Dems on our side with this one, no one can believe that this court ruled this way, and I think this is the straw that broke the courts back on judicial fiat. The people will not stand still for this one!
Hear, hear, we need to repeal ALL property taxes. If they need to increase sales taxes to meet the revenue loss, so be it, but all states need to get rid of property taxes, no one should lose their home because they can't pay illegal rent to the Government.
under the 'law of the admiralty' which the usa has been operating with, the powers-that-be own everything in the country, though it rarely exercises this control in regards to 'citizens'...
but as far as private ownership of land goes, just try withholding your property taxes and see what happens!
USA - take from the innocent who just want to be left alone and give to the wild-eyed tyrants.
Just trying to figure out if there's any real difference. Don't see one. The communists must be thrilled. Wasn't this part of their agenda some 40-60 years ago, to do away with private ownership of land in the US? Of course the federal government has been working on that for decades in the form of "land management". Somewhere I read what percentage of US acreage is actually owned by the various governments (federal, state, municipal, etc.). I remember being shocked but don't recall the percentage now.
SCOTUS just opened the door for massive land grabs based on about any premise, not just "wilderness" and "eco-systems." What a crock. But soon we'll get adjusted to this idea too, like all the other unConstitutional things that have been enacted against us. Do an internet search for "Walter Mitty's Second Amendment" if any of you have never read it.
And the people who reside in those areas? Trot them out to prison for no reason other than for living in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Amen.
I didn't say I was for it but you may be getting the idea
LMAO ! !
Yep, that worked out real swell w/ Cabrini Green and a thousand other inner city Beiruts in the 60s
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.