A Win for Big Government (Kelo v New London)

The Washington Times ^ | June 24, 2005

[sirthomasthemore]

Cities may now seize homes and businesses and hand them over to private developers to raise tax revenue. That's what the Supreme Court decided yesterday in Kelo v. New London, a 5-4 ruling that strips Connecticut homeowner Susette Kelo and several others of their homes and land. By siding with New London, the court drastically expands traditional eminent-domain powers beyond highways and fighting urban blight. This is a resounding defeat for ordinary landowners and a threat to property rights. Homeowners now own their homes only if the government wants them to.

[jess35]

The administration was going to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the city of New London. They backed off under pressure from about 45 property rights groups that sent the President a letter asking the administration to stay out of it.

During the press briefing today, Scott McClellan played stupid.

[Outland]

"Breakdown of Justices:..."

More like a breakdown of justice.

[Joe Brower]

Anyone looking for insight into the bigger picture in what is happening here, this article is a must-read:

When Tyranny Came to America"

Print it. Study it. And pass it along. And pray it's not already to late to turn back the hellish tide of socialism that is sweeping across our nation at an ever-increasing pace.

[MagnoliaB]

I found this article:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/15/friedman-l.html

"One of the myths of our political system is that the Supreme Court has the last word on the scope and meaning of federal law. But time and time again, Congress has shown its dissatisfaction with Supreme Court interpretations of laws it passes--by amending or re-enacting the legislation to clarify its original intent and overrule a contrary Court construction.

The Supreme Court often insists that Congress cannot really "overrule" its decisions on what a law means: The justices' interpretation has to be correct since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land. But Congress certainly has the power to pass a new or revised law that "changes" or "reverses" the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to "overrule" a specific Court decision."

Sounds like the best thing would be for everyone to raise hell with their congressman and representatives about this. If enough people show their anger over this decision perhaps they will do something. I plan on contacting mine.

[goldstategop]

And here we thought the Left stood up for the Little Guy. It turns out they stand up for Big Corporations and Big Government. So much for private propety rights indeed.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[metesky]

The Ballad of Carl Drega

[doberville]

EXCELLENT question.

What sort of recourse do we have to overturn this monstrocity?

Perhaps at last the inert bottoms of our countrymen will vacate their sofas in self interest.

[doberville]

BUT. . .BUT. . .if he's a Liberal, he's INCAPABLE of being honest.

[Noachian]

I read the article at the web site you posted, http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/15/friedman-l.html, and found something wrong with it in the second paragraph.

This part isn't correct:" The justices' interpretation has to be correct since the Constitution gives final say to the highest court in the land."

Anyone who is familiar with the Framers intentions in the Constitution knows that they never wanted judges to have the final word on legislation coming out of Congress. In fact they distrusted the judiciary so much that there was a debate as to whether or not to have one supreme Court over the state's Supreme Courts. They also put the control of the judicial branch under the authority of Congress -- not that Congress ever used it.

It was Chief Justice Marshall who started the process we know today as "Judicial Review" by saying "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." Since Congress backed down on that day we've been hostage to judges ever since. The writer of the article, Leon Friedman, must part of the legal industry who thinks the courts are the ultimate power in government and Congress merely gets in the of judges.

I suggest that you read Article 3 of The Constitution. There you'll find that the Supreme Court "...shall have appellate jurisdiction ...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." In other words the Congress has the power to overrule the Supreme Court's decisions -- they just don't do it. Congress also has the power to forbid the Supreme Court from hearing certain cases merely by wording their legislation to prevent it.

So, the real problems with an activist court lies in the hands of the Congress who has repeatedly refused to use their constitutional powers to regulate the courts.

Sounds like the best thing would be for everyone to raise hell with their congressman and representatives about this.

You're right about that, but Congress' inability to stand up to the courts has been going on for so long that it's become "business as usual" for the Representatives, and Senators, we send to Washington. If the people are ever to control the courts they must first control the Senate.

[Noachian]

What sort of recourse do we have to overturn this monstrocity?

One thing is certain, we can't keep amending the Constitution every time the court makes an unconstitutional ruling.

To stop the court's activism you have to go to the Congress who let it get out of hand in the first place. Congrss is the root of the problem.

Putting pressure on politicians, who will in turn pout pressure on the court, is the only way to stop this rogue court.

[sirthomasthemore]

Incidentally, under the guise of "follow the money,"

---

NonValAdd,

That's always going to be the problem now, right? With every project that increases tax revenue for a city; that same project is going to benefit some private group.

And thus, the condemnee question will always be- whose pocket got lined in taking some small guys'/gals' property?

[sirthomasthemore]

Sounds like the best thing would be for everyone to raise hell with their congressman and representatives about this

---

MagnoliaB,

You're onto some thing, here. But probably the easiest, or less involved, approach is to have your own State Legislature pass new Legislation.

The takings they are talking about have to come from some State law. The law in question in Conn. is one that allows City's to take property for urban renewal.

There are several states that have laws that mandate that property can only be taken if it's "blighted", for instance-and other limitations that can protect the property owner from this type of arbitrary invasion. Just depends on your State.

[oldbrowser]

OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

That should have been :

OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BY THE INDIVIDUAL, FOR THE INDIVIDUAL

As long as politicians can claim that they are doing things for the common good then they own all of us.

[sirthomasthemore]

And here we thought the Left stood up for the Little Guy

---

goldstategop

And that's the fallacy, isn't it?

The Dems say they stand up for the little guy, but every major Dem leader, including every left member of SCOTUS, is a millionaire.

At the same time, the GOP isn't faring to well with the little guy either: 1) illegals 2) big government, more taxes, 3) bankruptcy legislation.

As always, the average middle class guy/gal is taken for granted. I've posted before, the GOP could win a huge majority in 2006, if they just concentrated on 3 issues: 1) terrorism, America safe; 2) illegals out 3)cultural issues that insure the sanctity of the family (this encompasses activist judges, and this current judicial brainlock).

[jpsb]

"The administration was going to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the city of New London"

Why am I not surprised. Keep voting GOP for more, much more, of the same. The rise of a third party is long over do. We need get rid of just about every elected and unelected ruler we have. Vote third party.

[BlackbirdSST]

Has anyone heard el Presidente's take on this?

CNN reported an hour or so ago, that the WH has requested airtime to address the Nation this evening, think maybe 8:00, no topic given for the address. Don't hold your breath, it would be unwise. Blackbird.

[skip_intro]

Has anyone heard el Presidente's take on this?

CNN reported an hour or so ago, that the WH has requested airtime to address the Nation this evening, think maybe 8:00, no topic given for the address. Don't hold your breath, it would be unwise. Blackbird.

Well, if this post is accurate, I guess I have my answer.

The administration was going to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the city of New London. They backed off under pressure from about 45 property rights groups that sent the President a letter asking the administration to stay out of it.

[Checkers]

"Why am I not surprised. Keep voting GOP for more, much more, of the same. The rise of a third party is long over do. We need get rid of just about every elected and unelected ruler we have. Vote third party."

Voting third party gave us Clinton.

Clinton gave us Ginsburg and Breyer.

[Fatalist]

Do you have a source for this?

[Fatalist]

Never mind. skip_intro pointed me to this link