Posted on 06/27/2005 8:39:09 AM PDT by oblomov
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss today issued the following statement relative to yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that local governments may take people's homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.
“I am deeply disturbed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London,” said Sen. Chambliss. In Kelo, the Court decided yesterday by a 5-4 margin that a local government can seize a person’s home and turn it over to another private party for redevelopment.
(Excerpt) Read more at chattanoogan.com ...
Maybe the government should sieze all of the major newspapers and TV networks under the claim that "it would be for the public interest"???
</sarcasm>
Well, I am glad to see Senator Frist say something on the subject, but he appears to be ambivalent about eminent domain powers being exercised for private economic development. It's not what I hoped to hear from him, but at least he isn't braying about what a wonderful decision it was.
I guess all those phone calls must be having an effect. I called both my senators and reps, and hope other freepers are doing the same.
t dooesn't really matter what legislators say, as far as the court is concerned they get all the rights of judges plus the rights of legislators and the exectuive branch to boot. frankly I wouldn't be surprised to find them bending spoons and whining about how they are overdue for their supernatural powers as well.
I would love to see these two Senators really get out in front and confront the SCOTUS with this decision...
If it is 3 separate but EQUAL branches of the government, then the Congress cannot get intimidated by the SCOTUS, and should have the right to question such bad decisions...
also, the ones today about the 10 Commandments...
Well, heck. SCOTUS ruled that the federal government can regulate just about any activity. So development can be demonstrated to be more related to interstate commerce than growing weed that is not for sale. Pass a law prohibiting what is happening in New London, and then let SCOTUS implode trying to resolve the conflict.
E-mail here saying you want to help: prc@freedom.org
You can't. Most likely it will be the greed of the councilmen and women that determine it as they are bribed or have "campaign contributions" made or look at this as a way of funding their pet projects.
Does this decision give governments too much power over private property owners?
Is this a rhetorical question?
What assurances do Americans have, those who work so hard to buy their own homes, that government will not take those homes away?
Well, I guess that we could always take it to court. < /sarcasm>
Will this decision give undue advantages to politically connected developers and wealthy individuals?
Is John Ford a crook? Is the pope Catholic? Is the Hildebeast a Marxist?
I did, too. Frist is one of my Senators.
There is a simple solution that doesn't even require an amendment to the Constitution. Congress simply passes the following law.
No private property shall be acquired by eminent domain for the purpose of redistributing to another private owner. This law shall not be subject to review by the courts.
Go further. Use this as a springboard to curb eminent domain abuse once and for all by 1) defining a limited set of conditions where eminenet domain is acceptable, 2) creating rules for fair and just compensation for any property taken by eminent domain, 3) determining a fair mechanism for property owners to appeal an eminent domain claim, and 4) civil remedies for punitive damages against the government (to be paid to the original property owners) in cases where the taking is later found to be unjustified, or under false pretenses.
Example: the eminent domain definition is very tight and allows only for public works projects (roads, rail, public utilities, etc.). City claims land needed for new roadway. Owner appeals the ruling, but loses. Owner is paid a fair market value for the property (and I mean, a real FMV, not the phony stuff like New London is trying). City then abandons road project and sells "unproductive" land to developer. Original owner is then able to sue the city for improper taking, and get additional compensation, possibly based on the sale amount to the developer and/or punitive damages.
Henry is doing the Lord's work.
Nice to see Frist is "disappointed". Now, will he get the Senate to do something about it? I'm not going to hold my breath...
FINALLY!!! A republican leader speaks out against this land grab. What took them so long?
So Mr. Chamblee and Frist.......DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
"deeply disturbed"...
great, now if he would come take a crap on my lawn I'd have something tangible.
I certainly did......the minute I heard about the decision.
As well as those 5 judges!!
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.