High court's property decision stirs anger

World Net Daily.com ^ | June 24, 2005

[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.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Who's going to make him?

[Happy2BMe]

* * * * *

Free Republic Opinion Poll: Do you agree with today's SCOTUS ruling that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development?

Composite Opinion
Hell NO!	89.7%		2,288
No	7.8%		200
Yes	1.2%		30
Pass	0.7%		17
Undecided	0.6%		16
	100.0%		2,551
Member Opinion
Hell NO!	90.1%		1,788
No	7.2%		143
Yes	1.2%		23
Undecided	0.8%		16
Pass	0.7%		14
	100.0%		1,984
Non-Member Opinion
Hell NO!	88.2%		500
No	10.1%		57
Yes	1.2%		7
Pass	0.5%		3
Undecided	0.0%		0
	100.0%		567

[ More Opinion Polls · Return to Forum ]

[azhenfud]

The United Socialist States of America.

[Happy2BMe]

"Ronald Reagan put Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Had he picked someone more conservative we wouldn't be having this conversation."

=================

And so you are saying that R.R. would have agreed with this vote?

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

If Anthony Kennedy begins to see private property owners being booted out of their decades-old homes, maybe his conscience will force him to resign. I know, I know. Wishful thinking. He probably doesn't have a conscience. JUST IMPEACH THE BASTARD!

[Judith Anne]

Stephen King wrote an absolutely excellent novelette about a man whose house was going to be bulldozed for a road...can't remember the title...but he took matters into his own hands, and gave his life in protest...

[azhenfud]

"Who's running this place?"

Socialist Jackasses. The Constitution of the US is trashed, middle class American's rights are diminished to less than that of a peasant in central Mexico - 'cause in a few weeks, they'll be here and the American will be forced to pay for him.

[normy]

Where's the tar and feathers for those who voted yes? They need run out on a rail.

[ovrtaxt]

'The Hitch Hiker's Guide' begins in much the same way.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

JUST IMPEACH THE BASTARD!

Who are you talking to?
Nobody who reads this board has the ability to do that.
I'll bet you don't have FIVE senators who would vote to impeach, much less 67.
I'll bet there aren't THREE.
They're all in on it.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Who are you talking to? Nobody who reads this board has the ability to do that.

Well, nobody on this board had the power to impeach Bill Clinton, either. However, the passion, commitment and sense of mission by many FReepers across this nation convinced dozens of moderate Republicans in the U.S. House to impeach Bill Clinton. And 50 U.S. Senators voted to convict him, even though the public was two-thirds against it in polls.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Guys. We are officially a third world country ruled by a few politically appointed bureaucrats in favor of their friends. Zimbabwe comes to mind. Impeachment is the only answer. Peace and love, George.

[Happy2BMe]

Meanwhile the ENTIRE COUNTRY is being given away to South America . .

[devolve]

Doesn't Teddy Kennedy have a big 'ol house down by the water on too big a piece of wasted property?

Seems like that ought to be great for dozing those big homes there - John Kerry-Heinz's place there too.

Many more homes for many more people could be built on that land on the Cape.

Maybe also a Walmart or Target store and a big mall right there on the waterside.

Bet if they decide to "take" the home of some ALF folks for a few pennies on the dollar - Justice Kennedy's and Ginberg's homes will get some real friendly visitors......

See the nutty professors on TV last night thrilled about creating jobs and all of that "common good"?


Radical libs on SCOTUS must think all the "little liberals" live in a van - down by the river - well now they will have to park those vans down at the city dump!

[tkathy]

Never. Talk of another Ross Perot third party will just put Hillary in power, just as it put Bill Clinton in power.

[ovrtaxt]

As the Dems spiral away into irrelevance, that won't be an issue. They are $900,000 in violation to the IRS in FL.

The Dems and the IRS. What a combination-- a marriage made in hell. :)

[Happy2BMe]

"Seems like that ought to be great for dozing those big homes there - John Kerry-Heinz's place there too."

===================================

hehe . . as you said that I couldn't help but think of the Israeli bulldozer / peace protestor fiasco.

[machman]

This truly is the first step to Fascism. What better way for "public/private" partnerships to have their way . Hillary must be pleased........

We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

I suppose you've been voting Republican because the alternative is much, much worse

Exactly! I wasn't gaga over GWHB or Dole like I was for the Gipper, but they were infinitely preferable to Bubba. I just can't stomach this ruling. Private property is now a thing of the past. I never thought I would see the day in America.

[Wolfie]

I'd hate to be the sap enforcing this ruling.

City Council, people, City Council.