Kelo Home Seized Through Controversial Eminent Domain Taking Now Being Used As A Dumping Ground

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.

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?

Show me where the 5th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, defines public use and where the state of Connecticut deviated from that definition and then I'll agree with you.

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.

It would have been nice if the framers included that definition in the 5th Amendment but unfortunately they did not. It's interesting to note that the Connecticut constitution contains virtually the identical phrase when it covers eminent domain, and apparently the Connecticut Supreme Court interpreted it in a way inconsistent with what you're pretty certain the founders meant. Speculation aside, absent a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution then why should Connecticut not be allowed to interpret their own state constitution? I thought we were against Washington imposing their will on the states, not for it?

No explanation of WHY the child was “taken away” but even so the child has healthcare issues and the parent is responsible - even if the state has taken custody.

The healthcare issues of the child and the rationale for removing the child may have nothing to do with each other.

For many reasons a vacant parent is often responsible for the care and feeding of their children.

I’m sorry for the circumstances of your life. I sincerely hope that somewhere along the line your luck changes and you are able to follow-up with a success story.

Many Americans go bankrupt every day paying for overpriced doctors and shrinks. It’s a crappy part of life. Consider this: I pay $350 a month for family healthcare that includes my wife and me. My company pays a share of my healthcare monthly - I don’t know the amount, but my wife who is an HR Director assures me it’s easily at least the same, but probably more than the amount I pay. Neither she nor I have a disease like your child does. Based on what you’ve told us I have to assume you don’t have a healthcare plan. While $200/week for healthcare for your child may seem outrageous given your circumstances, the amount doesn’t seem extraordinarily high given how much healthcare costs to the average American citizen. Who would you have pay for the necessary healthcare of your child?

Ordinarily I wouldn’t ask, but you opened the door: what was the rationale behind the state removing your child from your home? Alaska doesn’t WANT custody of your minor child, so, again, I have to make an assumption that there was at least one compelling event that caused them to take action.

Here’s the question I have to ask myself: is it fair for you to have to foot the bill for healthcare for your chid even though that child has been removed from your home by the state? Well, I guess my answer to that is yes. If said child had remained in your home, wouldn’t you still have to pay for his/her healthcare?

What I see is a father struggling to make ends meet, not able to afford the healthcare of his child, and then complaining that he has to pay for the healthcare of that child when the state removes the child for a reason not provided to us, the readers.

Just because the state has custody doesn’t mean his responsibilities as a parent end. If we were to look at this strictly from a transaction perspective, the state is ensuring the child is getting appropriate healthcare and billing the parent.

I don’t know if the child should have been removed from the home, we’re not given an explanation as to why (and even if we did get an explanation, it’s going to be one sided...), but based on this type of event occuring tens of thousands of times a year all over America, I’m fairly confident that the child is reasonably being provided for. Is it a good scenario? No, I hate that sometimes the state has to step in, but he is still the father of that child. As much as he hates Alaska for interjecting themselves into his family life, I’m grateful that SOMEONE is providing for the child.

Do you have healthcare? How much do you pay monthly? How much does your employer pay monthly? I’ll bet if it’s a family plan than the total is close to $800/month. Since he didn’t provide us any information about the state wanting more than $200/week from him, I have to assume that the child is being housed and fed by the taxpayer at no cost to this father.

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.