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.
Had he picked someone more conservative we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Reagan did pick someone more conservative for that seat, but he was voted down by the Senate in 1987.
It can't be plainer -- according to the Supreme Court, a citizen has no property rights which the government needs to respect. A foreign terrorist has more rights than a property-owning citizen. The left is determined to turn this country into a third-world hellhole where a few rich, politically-connected elites own everything and the peasants are slaves. Probably what will happen next is a lot of "red" states will pass laws protecting property rights while a lot of "blue" states will cheerfully confiscate private property and give it to members of the political class and their wealthy donors. In ten years some states will be unlivable and there will be no middle class.
Meanwhile, the property values in states with sensible protections will be far above the others. HAHA!! The market always wins.
The destruction of private property rights is Communism, pure and simple.
Marx and Lenin must gleefully be doing the Gulag Tango in Hell right now.
Leni
I am more than pissed.
The 5th Amendment has been trashed, but there is still the 2nd Amendment.
If spineless Republicans realize we have the power to throw them out of office, maybe they will begin to really listen.
We survived Bill, and the backlash produced GWB for two terms; couldn't we servive Hillary? What would that backlash produce?
Thank you for seeing some bright side to this awful
mess. I'm glad I'm as old as I am...not a good thing
for the young people.
It is more likely that your home will be razed so Jackson can build anothe Neverland.
1 And it came to pass after these things that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard which was in Jezreel, next to the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. 2So Ahab spoke to Naboth, saying, "Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near, next to my house; and for it I will give you a vineyard better than it. Or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its worth in money."
3But Naboth said to Ahab, "The LORD forbid that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you!"
4So Ahab went into his house sullen and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he had said, "I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers." And he lay down on his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no food. 5But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said to him, "Why is your spirit so sullen that you eat no food?"
6He said to her, "Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite, and said to him, "Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it pleases you, I will give you another vineyard for it.' And he answered, "I will not give you my vineyard."'
7Then Jezebel his wife said to him, "You now exercise authority over Israel! Arise, eat food, and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite."
8And she wrote letters in Ahab's name, sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who were dwelling in the city with Naboth. 9She wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and seat Naboth with high honor among the people; 10and seat two men, scoundrels, before him to bear witness against him, saying, You have blasphemed God and the king. Then take him out, and stone him, that he may die. <>
11So the men of his city, the elders and nobles who were inhabitants of his city, did as Jezebel had sent to them, as it was written in the letters which she had sent to them. 12They proclaimed a fast, and seated Naboth with high honor among the people. 13And two men, scoundrels, came in and sat before him; and the scoundrels witnessed against him, against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, "Naboth has blasphemed God and the king!" Then they took him outside the city and stoned him with stones, so that he died. 14Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, "Naboth has been stoned and is dead."
15And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, "Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead." 16So it was, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab got up and went down to take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.
Free market privatisation of the Public Use. Isn't the private corporate use superior to the private one?
Eminent domain can help free market! The land should belong to those who can squeeze more profit/productivity out of it. After all this was the actual justification for taking the land from Indian tribes.
Oligarchies rule Latin America. Oligarchs try to take over Russia.
You mean someone like Robert Bork?
I am in wholehearted agreement on that one. Wakeup call!
Seems to me that the US Supreme Court building would generate more tax revenue if it were turned into a mall or a parking garage. Some developer could make a lot of money.........
Let see how many conservative Senators and Congresspersons rise to pass and amendment overturning this recent decision.
I bet very few!!! why becasue they want the government to have the power. Let's spend our time on that flag burning amendment.
I think that Bork would have ruled the same way as Kennedy. He has a statist streak in him.
I wonder how a Libertarian canidate would side on this issue?
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.