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.
Federalist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The term federalist can refer to different ideologies, depending on the locale. It usually has a link, close or not, to the concept of a federation.
* In Europe a federalist is sometimes a proponent of:
o Greater regional autonomy within a country (especially in states such as Switzerland and Belgium).
o Greater integration, centralisation or supranationalism within the European Union.
* In Quebec, a federalist, in regards to the future of the Quebec people and the National Question, defends the concept of Quebec remaining within Canada, while either keeping the status quo or pursuing greater autonomy and national recognition for Quebec within the Canadian federation. This ideology is opposed to Quebec sovereigntism, proponent of Quebec independence, most often (but not for all followers) along with an economic union with Canada similar to the European Union.
* In the United States the term federalist usually applies to a member of one of three groups:
o Historically:
+ Statesmen and public figures supporting ratification of the proposed Constitution of the United States between 1787 and 1789. The Federalist Papers are documents associated with their movement.
+ Statesmen and public figures supporting the administrations of Presidents George Washington (1789–1797) and John Adams (1797–1801). Especially in the later years they are also called the Federalist Party.
o In contemporary usage, advocates of the principle of allowing greater regional autonomy within the United States — usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a 'national' solution. Usually federalism is proposed as a solution to issues that may have strong support in some parts of the country and strong opposition in other parts, for example: restrictions on abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, medicinal use of cannabis, gun rights and restrictions on property rights.
+ The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies is an organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and fellow travellers dedicated to debate of these principles.
I'll see what I can do, but my senators aren't likely to care unless eminent domain comes after them.
In the sense that a Federalist is an advocate of centralised power at the expense of the states, I agree. The 10th amendment is nothing more than empty words after over 200 years of undermining.
The entire world shall belong to Him.
He will rule with majesty and justice and all the glory and all the honor shall belong to Him.
Until then - we have the U.S.S.C. to dole out it's obvious and ever-expanding oligarchy.
The GOP holds a majority in BOTH the House and the Senate.
It's not the same "Old Party" anymore.
Thanks for the ping!
============================
" Oligarchies ruleLatinAmerica."
He did. And his first choice was trashed.
That's what one might call a "Truism". I've never understood the blind following while the country steadily marches left, with these cheerleaders in tow. I don't get it. Blackbird.
Sounds like Hobbes. He and Swift and a few other crusty old men were often pessimistic and often correct.
Y'know what...I just googled New York, eminent domain and got a bunch of stuff.
Supposed to be the worst in the country.
I'm thinking that 3 legislative approaches might help: non-homestead exemption...only property that is not homestead could be seized; senior exemption...no seizure from those over 65 and who have owned the home more than say 25 years; finally, share the wealth...homeowners initially paid 10% over the value of the home _and_ get "royalties" from the profits accruing to the developers.
The "conservatives" of my aquaintance are most impressed with the Jesus talk: "I pray every day," and "God talks in my ear." After the shock of eight years of the Clintons, this is comfort to them.
As evidence continues to build that their faith in W is misplaced, they run from cognitive dissonance. The same happened to my liberal friends concerning Clinton back when.
Oh, and one should point out that a lot of the blind following of the GOP comes from bots spending all their time around other bots. One has to have a wide selection of friends and acquaintances in order to maintain perspective. That takes work, an open mind, and a bit of risk that someone might, oh my, disagree with one's bigotry.
Luckily, the state could ban this if they wanted to; the court only refers to federal guideliness, not state.
Very interesting. Great ideas, on target and make sense. Will see what my congressman have to say. Don't think I'll get much help from Teddy and Kerry, but who knows. If Kerry thinks this will help him get reelected, he'll jump on it.
He did, the brilliant Robert Bork. He had to modify in order to get anyone at all!
Now the Demons are attempting to go back to those bad old days even though they don't hold the majority today. We need to get rid of them ALL!!
Whatever works. :-)
Actually this could be a good way to use their liberalism against them. There is no reasonable possibility of getting them out of office so it's a good place to make it a liberal issue.
Unfortunately there seems to be a historic unholy alliance in NY between dems and republicans on this issue.
This can definitely be an effective use of FR activism.
True, and so far, from tv coverage, I think the country's still in a state of shock. This is something we can get our teeth into and make a difference. There's nothing more basic to the American dream than owning your own home.
Now that everyone sees what happens to their own pet ox due to judicial activism out of control, it should serve as a wake-up call to the creeping Marxism that is the liberal wing of the RAT Party.
Why are these people so surprised? Nothing has changed. Don't they know their business?
I pray that you are right.
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.