High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

"...Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless...They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. "

BUMPski.

[Rutles4Ever]

There already is an ammendment - the 5th!

"The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

[NYCynic]

I don't understand this one. Conservatives are pro-property rights and I thought Liberals were anti-big business. This should have been a 9 - 0 no brainer.

[redgolum]

Don't think there's any oil...only water

Fresh water? If so, depending on where you are, the state or county will be going for you land rights sooner than later.

[Myrddin]

I have a Tyranny Response Team t-shirt. It was printed in San Diego and inspired by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association shirts around 2000. The San Diego TRT folks were very active in protecting 2nd amendment rights. Looks like the shirts have new value for the 5th amendment too.

[Brian Allen]

Your post number 90 is the perfect illustration of the tyranny that best describes the feral and every other level of gummint's response to claims of the sanctity of private property.

Which tyranny is now backed and reinforced by a supreme court that has taken powers unto itself the likes of which once-great-britain's Mr George Three could but delusionally fantasize ever having.

And our nation fought its First War of Independence against George Three's puny powers ............

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I go to the polls every time and make sure that at least one vote will not be for the RAT machine.

Well...take heart in knowing that there is at least 2.

[RightWhale]

The State created the right of bequest. The natural right along those lines would be of the clan to take your family property. This was a great advance for civilization, to uphold the right of the family over the clan.

While the power of the State to assert eminent domain over family property must exist in order for the State to also enforce the right of bequest, we are concerned more with the amount of fair and just compensation than with the basic power. The power has always been there.

[blackie]

Hang 'em High ~ Bump!

[zeugma]

Justice Thomas for Chief Justice!

Quoting his dissent:

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that “the law of the land … postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property.” 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134—135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but instead for “public use.” Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a “ ‘[P]ublic [P]urpose’ ” Clause, ante, at 9—10 (or perhaps the “Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society” Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is “legitimate” and the means “not irrational,” ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

[RightWhale]

The power of life and death apparently resides in the State. For an individual citizen to attempt to assert such power without sanction of the State is asking for the State to come down hard on that individual citizen. This extends not only to criminals, where the power has been obvious for hundreds of years, but to any citizen. And even non-citizens who interact with the State on their own such as captured enemy combatants [you will find this power mentioned under piracy on the High Seas during the Constitutional Convention of 1787].

[from occupied ga]

Well now you know why both parties are so adamant about disarming us so that we can be helpless prey for their storm troopers.

[SittinYonder]

You're exactly correct on your point that this will have a huge impact on rural areas, which was my initial point. You are also exactly correct about the private investment accounts in Social Security. And your sarcasm.

[TKDietz]

"Property rights are not given explicitly in the Constitution. They are implicit only in the 4th and 5th Amendments."

5th Amendment:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That sounds pretty darned explicit to me.

[Necrovore]

Ha, you think George will come out and side with the American citizens on this? He is too busy with his head shoved up Vincente Fox's butt and the plans to bring in the Hemispheric state. This is no longer the USA. Too bad that no one will take a stand on this.

[safisoft]

I would have stayed home if I knew this was the way things would turn out in his second term.

I completely renounce my vote for GW Bush in 2000 and 2004. In his support for the terrorists in the land of Israel (aka Pali-terrorists) he has completely out done his country-club, Arabist Republican father. In his increased Federal spending, he has outdone WJB Clinton. In his cowtowing to the Demoncrats on all issues, he has outdone Gerald Ford.

There will never be another Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party is hopelessly lost.

[mbraynard]

I'm not sure that there is much to criticize in this ruling. I believe it was unanymous. Nothing in the constitution prevents a state or municipality for using imminent domain unless it violates one of the first ten amendments (IE - a state decides to demolish all Christian Churches).

This is the right fight but the wrong battlefield. A state legislature can pass a law preventing this, as can a city council. A state constitution may also be amended to prevent this.

Hopefully this decision will motivate people to take their battles where they belong - the legislative process, rather than relying on some deus ex machina such as the courts or beaurocrats.

[Outland]

"moving ever close to the tipping point for the next revolution....or slavery...which will it be?"

We're already slaves.

[oblomov]

Another example of eminent domain at work.