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.
Posted on 06/24/2005 2:23:15 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Property-rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court's split decision yesterday allowing a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's will for the purpose of private development.
The 5-4 ruling went against the owners of New London, Conn., homes targeted for destruction to make room for an office complex.
The American Conservative Union, the nation's oldest and largest conservative grass-roots organization, noted many of the affected citizens have deep roots in their community, including a married couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
"It is outrageous to think that the government can take away your home any time it wants to build a shopping mall," said ACU Chairman David Keene. "[The] Supreme Court ruling is a slap in the face to property owners everywhere."
Keene believes "liberal, activist judges will continue to violate the rights of individuals in favor of big government and special interests."
"To help protect property rights, Americans must push for a fair, originalist judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy arises," he said.
Susette Kelo was among several residents who sued the city after officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
"I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country," Kelso said. "I am very disappointed that the court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution."
The debate centered on the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads, schools and urban renewal. But New London officials argued that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even though the area was not blighted.
"It's a dark day for American homeowners," said Dana Berliner, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the group of Connecticut residents in the case.
"While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected," Berliner said. "Every home, small business or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain."
California state Sen. Tom McClintock, who ran for governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the Supreme Court "broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans' most fundamental rights."
"Their decision nullifies the Constitution's Public Use Clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain," he said. "The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens."
McClintock announced he plans to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights.
"This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property," he said. "In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceases to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action."
Writing in dissent of yesterday's decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said cities shouldn't be allowed to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue."
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The American Family Association noted Justice Clarence Thomas' addition to O'Conner's dissent: "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."
Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, said America's founders "held that government was instituted to protect property as much as persons, but today's high court no longer respects private property."
"There is a world of difference between taking private property for a legitimate public use, such as the building of a road, and some private developer's get-rich-quick scheme," he said. "In effect, the Supreme Court has written over city hall: 'The government giveth, and the government taketh away.'"
Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, said both the majority and the dissent recognized that the action in this issue now turns to state supreme courts where the public-use battle will be fought out under state constitutions.
"Today's decision in no way binds those courts," he said.
Mellor said his group will work to ensure the property owners in New London keep their homes.
"This is a terrible precedent that must be overturned by this court, just as bad state supreme court eminent domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later overturned by those courts," he said.
Another homeowner in the case, Mike Cristofaro, has owned property New London for more than 30 years.
"I am astonished that the court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money," he said. "Although the court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans."
The Institute for Justice says more than 10,000 private properties have been threatened or condemned in recent years.
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
"To help protect property rights, Americans must push for a fair, originalist judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy arises," he said.
Sad that we even have to worry about this with a GOP President supposedly calling the shots.
Judges legislating from the bench. The old cliche lives.
That would ultimately be the President.
The Dems are on the ropes, especially in FL. IMO, it's time for a new party to the right of the flaccid GOP.
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.
And GOP presidents nominated three of the five justices who made yesterday's outrageous ruling: Stevens (Ford), Souter (Papa Bush) and Kennedy (Reagan).
No more "stealth" candidates for the Supreme Court. Bush must nominate someone whose deeply principled conservative views are widely known. If he doesn't, we're in big, big trouble.
I used to worry about another Souter. Now I worry about another Kennedy, too.
I will say it as plainly as possible.
It damn well should stir anger.
How many of them sons a bitches on the bench who voted for it would have done so if it was THEIR PROPERTY being condemned?
And I won't even ask for a pass for cussin...
He won't be the one knocking on the door, but good point all the same. The silence from the White House is infuriating.
Well, at least Ronald Reagan's justices (Scalia and O'Connor vs. Kennedy) voted 2-1 against this insane ruling. Papa Bush's justices split, as they almost always do (Thomas vs. Souter) and Nixon's (Rehnquist) joined in the dissent.
I suppose you've been voting Republican because the alternative is much, much worse. Bill Clinton's justices both voted in the majority on this case.
We need some brave soul in the media to approach Hillary Rodham and ask what she thinks of the Ginsburg/Breyer votes in this case. Would she consider elevating either one to Chief Justice if she were to become president? Does she believe her husband made a mistake when he appointed Ginsburg or Breyer? It would be nice to get her on record. But the mainstream media is made up of liberal wimps, so I guess we never will.
Anger doesn't even begin to describe
Ronald Reagan put Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
Had he picked someone more conservative we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Dick Cheney has plenty of time to get into a pissing match with Howard Dean, and Karl Rove has plenty of time to stir up partisan anger about 9/11, but President Bush - the self-described "compassionate conservative" - either doesn't have the time, doesn't have the heart or doesn't have the concern to express outrage on the day of one of America's most disturbing legal rulings for the common folk. PATHETIC!
Hey, they are basically sayin, "We have the guns, try to stop us!"
Who was it that said "Government is a necessary evil"?
Before blaming Reagan for this ruling, we first have to blame (in order) Clinton, Ford and George H.W. Bush.
At least Reagan's three justices voted 2 to 1 AGAINST this crazy ruling.
Home protected with lethal force against private and public thieves.
Thomas Jefferson, I think.
Now HE would make a great Justice!
As someone who's undergone having the city taking my house, this is a criminal decision IMO.
I really hope some billionaire out there finds out where Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens all live, then goes to each city and offers big-time money to build a Wal*Mart right where each justice lives. Get out now, Ruthie baby. C'mon, time's a wastin'. Grab your photo albums. We start bulldozing at sun up!
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.