Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ownership Society Includes Property Confiscation?
The CATO INSTITUTE ^ | 1-12-02 | cato

Posted on 01/12/2005 12:17:47 PM PST by AdamSelene235

"On the campaign trail last year, President Bush said a priority of his second term would be to 'build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence.' Sounds good to us," reads a Wall Street Journal editorialtoday. "But the rhetoric doesn't square with news that the administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain."

The Cato Institute also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case Kelo v. City of New London, except Cato's brief is on behalf of the property owners. It argues that the city has violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. That provision permits government to take private property only for "public" use -- such as roads or hospitals -- after paying just compensation. But in this case, the city wants to seize property for the benefit of private developers -- simply because government accountants believe the new owner's proposed hotel and office buildings will generate more revenue for the city.

The University of Chicago's Richard A. Epstein, author of Cato's brief, carefully dissects the city's argument, showing it to be without constitutional merit. This case, he adds, puts the spotlight on the "financial ruin" and "psychological devastation" that follow from the confiscation of private homes.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: cato; eminentdomain; fifthamendment; govwatch; ownershipsociety; propertyrights; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: AdamSelene235

bump


21 posted on 01/12/2005 1:01:03 PM PST by blackeagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy

...We have to be smart to forestall socialism...


Yeah, smart enough to build a time machine.


22 posted on 01/12/2005 1:06:28 PM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calex59

A municipal utility district is using eminent domain for a portion of my property. They want to lay sewer and water for a new subdivision down the road. I asked them to provide me sewer and water since it going across my property and they told me to get lost.


23 posted on 01/12/2005 2:10:46 PM PST by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Bump


24 posted on 01/12/2005 3:50:38 PM PST by JOAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Bush files on this side, Rehnquist and O'Connor will back the seizures, we're screwed. Better sell the farm now and put your assets in a form you can carry.


25 posted on 01/12/2005 4:18:01 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (NO BLOOD FOR CHOCOLATE! Get the UN-ignoring, unilateralist Frogs out of Ivory Coast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998
A municipal utility district is using eminent domain for a portion of my property. They want to lay sewer and water for a new subdivision down the road. I asked them to provide me sewer and water since it going across my property and they told me to get lost.

Guess it's time for blasting out those tree stumps on your land .... oops ... one was too close to the pipeline .. what a pity.

26 posted on 01/12/2005 4:20:41 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Nations do not survive by setting examples for others. Nations survive by making examples of others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: calex59
It is illegal under the original constitution and probbly illegal under the one we re using today. The government has no right to size your land for any reason, but they do anyway.

I don't see how its illegal, though I do agree with your point about just compensation.

Its pretty clear under the 5th amendment, that they can seize private property for public use as long as due process is followed and just compensation is given.

Bare in mind, I strongly disagree with taking private property for public or private use (I feel private property should only be taken as punishment for a serious crimes, or if public use, then something of only the highest and most urgent importance, which is still debatable, but the higher the standard the better i.e. your next door to terrorists, and the government needs to monitor them for intel or something).

Clinton essentially privatized emminant domain (which is why certain large retailers backed him up), though the GOP wasn't exactly not complicit.

You would be amazed, at how many socialists, of the "anti-business" and "anti-corporate" envious slothes, actually support privatizing emminent domain, the reasons alone are chilling.

27 posted on 01/12/2005 5:02:27 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
28 posted on 01/12/2005 11:50:45 PM PST by farmfriend ( Congratulation. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

BTTT!!!!!!


29 posted on 01/13/2005 3:04:29 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Baby Bear; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; BroncosFan; Capitalism2003; duznshwrnkd; jmc813; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
30 posted on 01/13/2005 10:33:04 AM PST by freepatriot32 (http://chonlalonde.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
I suspect that even the presidents concept regarding "ownership" as it applies to Social Security, is not going to be real ownership. Are they not going to dictate what your SS dollars can and cannot be invested in? Does anyone actually believe that they will let the selected investments fail when natural economic realities lead to such failures? Do we need the government protecting preferred investments?

Ownership must include taking full responsibility for losses. Political reality says that will not be the case. The people will demand bail outs for failures. Government planners will regulate, manipulate markets, and even slow or prevent innovations that would economically hurt the preferred investments.

The whole concept being pushed by the President is a Trojan Horse loaded with the next army for the advancement of socialistic economic planning.

31 posted on 01/14/2005 9:47:49 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
You have grokked its essence and speak rightly.
32 posted on 01/14/2005 10:04:02 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
Way back in I the 1980s I helped organize a state wide campaign against a Washington State Legislature endorsed initiative to amend the State Constitution to allow use of the federal "Tax Free Industrial Revenue Bonds." It had almost unanimous republican and democratic party support. We lost.

But everything we predicted as to boondoggle investments, and tax supported bailouts occurred after their use. I see this as more of the same.

33 posted on 01/14/2005 10:48:36 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
correction to my last reply. Last sentence should read:

I see this as more of the same, on a far more grander enormous scale

34 posted on 01/14/2005 10:54:10 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
correction to my last reply. Last sentence should read:

I see this as more of the same, on a far more grander enormous scale

35 posted on 01/14/2005 10:54:47 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

"But the rhetoric doesn't square with news that the administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain."


36 posted on 06/27/2005 3:02:49 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson