Posted on 09/02/2011 4:59:09 AM PDT by icanhasbailout
The Kelo vs. New London case saw the Supreme Court expanding the government’s eminent domain powers to include taking property and giving it to other private citizens for the purposes of economic development and enhancing tax revenues. It was a terrible blow to property rights in America.
And now, in perhaps a fitting end to the sad chapter in American jurisprudence, the City of New London is now using the property the fought to seize all the way to the Supreme Court as a dumping ground. Video below, and a letter to the editor noting the irony of the city using this particular property.
So the state takes his son away and is charging him $200 per week for ‘healthcare’ and that’s ok with you?
It’s safe to say you have no appreciation of being a father or of children’s healthcare. In your mind the government knows best for each. What a priq!
Yep, as long as a real property tax is levied on the property you live on, you do not own the property free and clear, you are merely a sharecropper or a renter with the landlord being the government. Don’t believe me? Stop paying your property taxes, and see how long you live there before the sheriff kicks you off the land you supposedly own. Homesteading and substinence living died a long time ago.
LOL! That is an excellent idea!
Did you ever read the Supremacy Clause? The United States Consitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The CT State Supreme Court cannot override the Consitution. How about the 5th Amendment? In his opinion, Justice Stevens actually CHANGED the words to “public benefit”. What happened to 2/3rds of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States to change the Constitution? This decision was and is indefensible and is probably the worst example of judicial activism in Supreme Court History.
The Supremacy Clause is only applicable in support of an enumerated power. While I don’t think emminent domain should be used the way it was in Kelo, I’d like to know what enumerated power the Supremacy Clause would be invoked in support of to make it applicable in this case.
The 5th Amendment does not define ‘public use’. So how could the Justice Stephens change it?
The power to pick winners and losers
Property rights are something the government allows us — when it suits them.
Certainly taking from one private individual to give to another is not public use.
Until I can get actual alloidal title I see no reason to buy real estate in the USA. Even fee simple is subject to too much abuse and is still functionally just renting from the government. If they can take your property for failure to pay property tax, THEY own it and you do not.
Private property will not be taken except for PUBLIC USE (and with just compensation) according to the Constitution.
If they wanted a dump it would have been OK Constitutionally - the problem was they originally wanted to take it to give it to a big and influential private company - Pfizer.
Private property will not be taken except for PUBLIC USE (and with just compensation) according to the Constitution.
If they wanted a dump it would have been OK Constitutionally - the problem was they originally wanted to take it to give it to a big and influential private company - Pfizer.
A lot of states enacted amendments to better define eminent domain. I know Florida did. Who wants to bet that California and New York are ‘keeping their options open.’
I would argue that the 10th Amendment does not apply. It is the catch-all for items not covered in the Constitution and property taking is covered by the 4th and 5th Amendments.
I may not disagree with you but where does the U.S. Constitution say that? The Connecticut legislature passed a law saying that that under certain situations using eminent domain to take private property and turning it over to private companies constituted public use. The state courts said that doing so didn't violate the state constitution. Agree or disagree, it is the right of the state to define 'public use' that way if they want to since the U.S. Constitution does not define it for them. And having chosen their course the U.S. Supreme Court should not have overruled them.
Superfund site name
NEW LONDON SUBMARINE BASE
Population within 10 miles (2000 Census): 154,367
Size of site: 576 acres
•Number of contaminants: 98
•Contaminated at site: Debris | Groundwater | Leachate | Sediment | Soil | Solid Waste | Surface Water
•Contains at least one of the top five most hazardous chemicals
Read the opinion, because that’s what he does. Do you honestly think that the framers of the Constitution would be in favor of government at any level, taking somone’s property, albeit at “fair market value”, sell it to another private entity, so that they may develop it? Do you think that a “buyer” building private offices, private businesses, and private dwellings, defines “public use”? Allow me to point something out. When conservatives and liberals agree that something is wrong, it usually is.
The tenth Amendment does not give states the right to violate the 5th Amendment right to Private property. Like I said, the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. period. Let’s say the state of CT passes a law saying that you must be 21 to vote. That is in clear violation of the 26th Amendment of the right to vote at 18. Are you saying that the 10th mendment would allow that?
By using the word "public" in Amendment V: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
I'm pretty certain public means exactly what the framers meant - and not to fill the coffers by selling your private property, taken under the color of eminent domain, regardless of compensation, to another private entity, so you can get more tax money.
The city's use of eminent domain (public use) to get it was wrong on all accounts.
Do you not support the concepts laid out by the 10th Amendment?
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.