Posted on 06/24/2005 4:15:43 AM PDT by bwteim
Kennedy's Vast Domain
June 24, 2005; Page A12
The Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.
CUT CUT
So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In Raich v. Gonzales the Court said there are effectively no limits on what the federal government can do using the Commerce Clause as a justification. In Kelo, it's now ruled that there are effectively no limits on the predations of local governments against private property.
These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles. If President Bush is truly the "strict constructionist" he professes to be, he will take note of the need to check this disturbing trend should he be presented with a High Court vacancy.
URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111957306808268311,00.html
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I just don't get why everyone is so blasted hopeful about Bush getting more judges.....
aren't most of the positions on the Supreme Fart ALREADY Republican nominations?
Not only is that absolutely -- and frighteningly -- true, but it would make a good tagline. It's worthy of your nickname.
MIAMI, FLORIDA
U.S. SUPREME COURT Ruling on land is vital locally
Hollywood leaders took notice on Thursday when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state and local governments' power to take private land for economic development.
BY SCOTT HIAASEN AND ANDRES VIGLUCCI
shiaasen@herald.com
A deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that government agencies may seize land from private owners and give it to private developers to spur economic development.
The court's 5-4 ruling was a blow to property-rights advocates, who said state and local governments routinely violate the constitutional rights of landowners by using eminent domain laws to take land for redevelopment. They say such seizures -- commonly used throughout South Florida -- amount to a land-grab for rich developers at the expense of those they displace, who are often poor. CUT CUT
The decision was closely watched in Hollywood, which this week decided to use its eminent-domain powers to take a downtown building that developer Chip Abele needs for his planned 19-story Young Circle Commons. The property owner doesn't want to sell.
''I'm disappointed that the justices decided to favor big-time developers over private-property owners,'' said David Mach, whose family owns the one-story Art-Deco style building at 1843 Harrison St.
The long-term implications of the decision in Florida and elsewhere are not clear, because the court left it up to state governments to determine how and when local governments can take property. For decades, Florida law has allowed cities and counties to take land for redevelopment. CUT CUT
Mach said the ruling won't change his stance.
His father George and his mother Katalin worked at a corner beauty salon that was part of their 2,900-square-foot building. Mach manned the cash register as a teenager. His father died earlier this year.
''We are not going to be bullied into selling,'' Mach said. He said he'll take his case to court, despite Thursday's ruling, which appears to weaken his case.
''What the court said was, we're not going to second-guess local government,'' said University of Florida law professor James Nicholas.
Some lawyers warned that the ruling could embolden local governments to use their eminent domain power more aggressively to promote economic development.
''Now lawyers can say you are on solid legal ground to take land so long as there is some sort of economic boost,'' said Bob Jarvis, a professor of constitutional law at Nova Southeastern University. ``There is no question that this really gives a green light to developers and governments that want to help them.''
Herald staff writers Jerry Berrios and Samuel P. Nitze contributed to this report.
I'm with the Cape Cod/Martha's Vineyard Corp. & I want to build highrise condos from one of this place to the other. Imagine that!
The left particularly targets Wal Mart and pharmaceutical companies and interestingly it is the parmaceutical company Pfizer who will benefit from the eminent domain issue in New London as they will be removing homeowners so that corporation can build an office.
Well, more than two-thirds of Pfizer's contributions have went to the Republicans. And for a good reason, I might add. I don't think it's a good idea for the Republicans to start demonizing American corporations with misguided leftist rhetoric.
You're missing the point. The left demonizes big business every day and pretends they are for the little guy.
The SCOTUS just ruled a reverse Robin Hood -- steal from the poor and give to the rich.
It's not about Pfizer, although it's an interesting fact that the Rats constantly demonize pharmaceuticals.
That's interesting and I will read more about this; the Republicans need to take a lesson or two from you I think.
I was hoping we'd see a push by Republicans to amend the amendment to include "no taking for economic development".
I've said so for years, lol. But in all seriousness the Pubbies simply don't pay any attention to the tactics of the Left, to their detriment. Recall that Hillary's MA thesis was on the propaganda methods of Saul Alinsky and his "Rules for Radicals." That's been standard stuff on their side for years, and when they unleash it Pubbies -- especially Congressional Pubbies -- tend to react like deer caught in the headlights or Charley Brown attempting to kick Lucy's football. Liberal tactics are predictable -- and beatable -- and the perpetual cluelessness on our side fills me with despair.
- excerpt from The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
Note1: The 1st Amendment provides the means to ALTER the Government
Note2: The 2nd Amendment provides the means to ABOLISH the Government �
Some on the Supreme Court apparently wouldn't understand the phrase, "fair market value" if it dropped out of the sky, and hit them on their collective heads.
In a 'hot' real estate market experiencing rising prices, increased population pressures and many competing uses, the "fair market value" for a piece of property is WHATEVER price that homeowner can obtain for his/her property.
This new (current) price is decided by the two transacting parties, alone, and no one else - the individual homeowner and Walmart (or commercial developer, etc).
This SC ruling is quite simply the OPPOSITE of a market outcome. It relieves the OTHER party, the large commercial group, of the need to strike a VOLUNTARY (truly market-based) contractual agreement, with the individual homeowner. It takes the little guy, the homeowner, out of the negotiation, and deprives him or her of the right to negotiate a profitable deal for his own property on the other side of the bargaining table.
When government (the institution of force in our society) steps in, and "decides" what a fair market value is then the outcome is anything but a "market outcome." It becomes a decision based on force, not a mutually reached & peaceful transaction.
Some on the Supreme Court have flunked their Economics 101 courses decades back, or perhaps, they slept through them.
Excellent post - truly (sadly) on point.
Yup. In practice, government is what we allow it to be. A great document like the US Constitution is little defense against a relativistic culture.
Those windmills are looking pretty good on Martha's Vineyard right now.
Of course. Who would want to dent a perfectly good bulldozer?
Exactly. For an example of eminent domain in the Bible, see 1 Kings chapter 21.
FWIW, there is no mention anywhere in the opinion of the concept "fair market value".
Some powerful comments in O'Connor and Thomas. See excerpts from the opinion:
JUSTICE O'CONNOR:
In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use.
It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public -- such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.
The logic of today's decision is that eminent domain may only be used to upgrade -- not downgrade -- property. At best this makes the Public Use Clause redundant with the Due Process Clause, which already prohibits irrational government action. See Lingle, 544 U. S. __.
CUT CUT
For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property.
Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.
If legislative prognostications about the secondary public benefits of a new use can legitimate a taking, there is nothing in the Court's rule or in JUSTICE KENNEDY's gloss on that rule to prohibit property transfers generated with less care, that are less comprehensive, that happen to result from less elaborate process, whose only projected advantage is the incidence of higher taxes, or that hope to transform an already prosperous city into an even more prosperous one.
For all these reasons, I would revisit our Public Use Clause cases and consider returning to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause: that the government may take property only if it actually uses or gives the public a legal right to use the property.
JUSTICE THOMAS:
The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result.
CUT CUT
When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning.
The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called "urban renewal" programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.
For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in JUSTICE O'CONNOR's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
I'd even settle for a couple of cell towers at the compound. Then add some dishes and put local schools on wireless "it's for the children" network and sell space to the highest bidder.
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.