Posted on 12/21/2004 1:08:54 AM PST by JohnHuang2
The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in one of the most important property-rights cases in a generation. A remarkable coalition has called upon the court to restore the constitutional requirement of "public use" as a prerequisite to government taking of property.
One would expect the Bush administration, with its professed support for strict constitutional construction and for property rights, to join the dozens of conservative and libertarian groups arrayed in this effort, or at worst to sit on the sidelines. But for reasons unfathomable to President Bush's core constituency, the administration is seriously considering filing a brief opposing property rights.
The case involves the abuse of one of the most dangerous powers of government, eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment provides that government may take property for "public use" with just compensation.
Historically, eminent domain was used for such obvious public works as schools, roads and the like. In recent years, state and local governments began using eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another more politically powerful private owner in the name of economic development. The Institute for Justice, which represents the plaintiffs in the case currently before the court, has documented more than 10,000 cases of such instances of Robin Hood-in-reverse.
So long as the power of eminent domain is unbounded by the requirement of public use, no one's home or business is safe. The government always can make the case that any particular property can be put to "higher" use -- i.e., it can always generate more tax revenues for voracious local governments.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The power of "eminent domain" has been abused. Its time for conservatives to let the Bush Administration know in no uncertain terms its time to stand up for property rights.
Use -- or abuse -- of the eminent domain power is integral to many large projects, especially the stadiums so beloved of sports teams and their owners. Dare we suspect that George Bush has views forged in battles over eminent domain for the Texas Rangers?
The President's appointment of Tom Ridge as director of homeland security scared me for these kind of reasons. Ridge, as governor of PA, showed a great deal of disdain for the rights of individual property owners. His Growing Greener (a Smart Growth initiative) is an abomination, just about requiring centralized land use planning even in rural areas, to qualify for any state grant money. It also supports making public trails through private property...
BTT!!!!!!!
More problems brewing on the horizon...
Bush is rubbing me the wrong way on immigration. Hope he doesn't screw us on property rights.
It really cracks me up that so many on this forum think bush is a conservative. At best he's a "Wilsonian Progressive", at worst a self-righteous do-gooder (and there's not much in between).
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.