Posted on 06/23/2005 7:56:36 PM PDT by andie74
BEGINNING his oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London, the Connecticut eminent-domain case the Supreme Court took up last week, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice puts the stakes bluntly:
Every home, church, or corner store would produce more jobs and tax revenue if it were a Costco or a shopping mall, he says. If state and local governments can force a property owner to surrender his land so it can be given to a new owner who will put it to more lucrative use, no home or shop in America will ever be safe again.
Thats just what New London wants to do to Bullocks clients, the last remaining homeowners in the citys working-class section of Fort Trumbull. When Pfizer, the big pharmaceutical firm, announced in 1998 that it would build a $300 million research facility nearby, the city decided to raze Fort Trumbulls modest homes and shops so they could be replaced with more expensive properties: offices, upscale condos, a luxury hotel.
But can the government kick people out of their homes or businesses simply to make way for new development?
Under the Bill of Rights, the power of eminent domain may be used only when land is needed for a public use. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation, the Fifth Amendment commands. A school, a post office, a right of way for a railroad those are the kinds of public uses for which property owners have traditionally been made to relinquish their land.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
For example, a Motel 6, OConnor says. A city thinks, If we had a Ritz-Carlton, wed get higher taxes. Is that OK?
Yes, thats OK, Horton replies.
Justice Antonin Scalia: You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?
Horton: Yes, if its a significant amount.
Note the date published on this...some great case law cited. Read it and literally weep.
Note the date published on this...some great case law cited. Read it and literally weep.
-----
It is beyond tragic. The socialist mentality that has prevailed due to the socialists that sit on SCOTUS, is a mortal wound to Constitutional liberty and freedoms of ownership. This is just to incredible to even believe --- the left is out of it f-ing mind!!!!
Well, we know now what they did. Good Christ, what a bad decision. And Souter the swing guy -- great move, Poppy Bush. And junior wants to put squishes like Al Gonzalez on SCOTUS. This is a decision that Lord North and George III would seek.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Good cites and old speculation
If cities exploit this decision, which they will, expect violence. Somebody will eventually get hurt.
People will generally suck it up and accept tough calls, but this was not a tough call.
I don't expect violence. But it is prudent to be prepared in case violence surfaces.
When rights, so plainly written are twisted into meaninglessness, it's not reasonable to expect any other result in a country that was born out of relentless dedication to individual rights and limited government.
Time, once more, to examine and analyze, very carefully, the nuances of the classic fascist state.
FULL TEXT PDF OF ORAL ARGUMENTS IN KELO V. NEW LONDON
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-108.pdf
I don't see anything like a Civil War.
I'm thinking more of individual rage.
Here in Texas we take land and property rights very, very seriously.
Also, would it be wrong for the person thrown off his property to dump a bucket of dioxin (or similar chemical on the EPA bad list) on his former property as a going away gift? One anonymous call to the EPA and suddenly all development has to be shut down and the new owner has thousands of dollars of clean up.
Schumer, Leahy, Durbin and Boxer's attempts to skewer qualified nominees based on their protection of all things abortion will fail; the confiscation of the American Dream itself trumps Roe vs. Wade.
Excellent tagline!
Why not? How much more would you think people everywhere will take from Big Stupid Government? At what point would you stand and fight?
I'm not waiting to board the train to the camps to get mad, that's for damn sure. We saw how that worked out last time.
Mark my words.
L
"it is prudent to be prepared in case violence surfaces."
Surely, prudence can be argued as "expectation," but just the same, I don't expect violence.
Violence is guaranteed. Revolution is at hand.
Yes. People will die over this one; we'll see how far it goes.
That being said, I do expect it. This one's big, and very stupid even for Big Stupid Government.
I can think of five right off the bat.
L
I blame Anthony Kennedy, who has emerged as the unexpected villain of the Court. One wonders what "international law" he, Ginsburg et al used for inspiration to seize property...Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
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.