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.
I say we form a property rights militia and go protect these people's homes!!! Sign me up!
We don't have the man power to stem the invasion of illegals on the border, but just wait till an 80 year old couple doesn't want to leave their ancestral home because the local politicians want to buy more votes. We'll see 24 hr. coverage of dozens of SWAT teams in their ninja outfits swarming over the scene with weapons drawn until the pitiful octogenarians are trundled away to the court. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington are weeping in their graves.
We should point out that this guy "from" Texas was born in Conneticut to an elite family, raised in elite boarding schools in New England, and is about as much a Texan as I am. Also that he is obviously a corporate puppethead designed to make the religious types feel warm and fuzzy.
Having the Witch Queen in the White House will make no difference. The same people will be in charge. The only difference, instead of listening to W's scripted crap, we have to look at...urp...It...
I'm not a Christian, but the bible shows, again and again, that some things don't change.
I think that was Jefferson.
Has he picked someone more conservative at the time the Democrat Senators would not have approved it. There was no need for a filibuster since the Dems controlled the Senate back then. All three of the Republican appointed judges that voted for this were approved by a Democrat Senate.
"Bork was a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1982 to 1988, and was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1987. He was strongly opposed by political groups favoring a continuation of the liberal jurisprudence of the Warren court.
I read this article, and I can't believe it. What if this had happened in the 1940's instead of today.
Republicans, supposedly the party of big business, would have been the ones cheering about something like this, right? Supposedly, the D's were the ones thinking about the little people - poor property owners being forced out of their homes by Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller. There would have been insinuations of influence on the Supreme Court - millionaires buying the right to wreck homes to build factories.
Today? It's the liberals fault.
After all the backstabbing by supposed conservatives in the last two weeks, I've come to a conclusion:
There is no such thing as liberal or conservative in this country anymore.
The battle today is different. There are those that believes that the US should lead the world, and there are those that simply don't want the US to lead the world. I think it may be as simple as that.
The two pillars of our strength here in the US has been the right to own property, and the ability to enforce contracts. The rest of the structure was a limited central government, with a Constitution that specified that states retained all powers save only a limited few.
It worked precisely because central government had been a failure since Rome.
From now on, I think I'm going to stop refering to people in terms of consevative and liberal. Now there are only federalists and strict constructionists. Federalists are split into two factions - Socialists and globalists.
Socialist are what they've always been - compassionate about people through the application of somebody elses money. Globalists are socialists with a foreign policy outlook that sees the US's role as leader and proselytizer for liberty as outmoded and even arrogant.
After applying that filter to the Senate, the House, the Press, and the President, EVERYTHING starts making sense again. It is especially apparent in the Senate. Oddly, the house has become a calmer voice of reason than the Senate, even after passing a flag-burning bill.
The Supremes are about 6-3 federalist. The senate is about 56-44 federalist and getting worse by the day. The House is slightly more constructionist than federalist. The Press? Overwhelmingly globalist.
Levin's book has blown the whistle on all of this, and it seems like the Supreme Court has been in overdrive to gut what remains of the Constitution before people start dying off. Problem here is that most of the problem with the current court is still pretty healthy.
As for Red and Blue states, it appears that some decisions have been made on the coasts that the rest of the country hasn't heard about. The Blue States have the gold and want to make the rules. The Red States understand this and realize that if the Blue States had their way there simply wouldn't be states to worry about in the first place.
This is why federalists want the electoral college dismantled immediately. It's the only thing that gives a state like Wyoming any kind of influence in DC.
That comment of yours doesn't make much sense!
I am frustrated after year of voting for the supposed party of limited governemtn, that something like this could happen. I realize the SCOTUS 5 were not all Republican appointees, but enough were to set my teeth on edge.
It can be overturned faster than that.
Yesterday I read a comment somewhere here that many states have stricter rules. Check yours. And do it now while there's attention being paid to the issue.
I live in MA. I may be doomed.
You seem to be very confused. I think your confusion is due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of Federalism.
Visit this site: http://www.federalist.com
Their newsletter is the best on the web, every FReeper and conservative should read it.
We are now officially living in a kleptocracy
Wonder if NYC could say it is for the community good to make the site where the UN is, into a parking lot.
I'd be really curious. Can you find out?
I have an idea.
We e-mail our relevant state legislators and ask, also asking permission to quote the responses. Then post them here.
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.