Posted on 06/24/2005 7:10:34 AM PDT by Crush T Velour
Here's the situation. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the elected governments of cities can't define "imminent domain" as land for a shopping mall. I don't think they should, but is it a question for the Supreme Court to involve itself?
This is a policy issue. The legislature of Connecticutt should get involved and pass a law that says "the government can't seize private property for private use." Or maybe the Congress and Senate should.
But the Supreme Court...finally had the restraint not to involve itself in policy decisions. And I think that's good.
The difference between belief that the government can do everything that is not specifically prohibited and the belief that the government can do only what is specifically enumerated.
Leaving aside the fact that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the Federal government...
Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that private uses are not to be construed as imminent domain?
Actually the constitution says any right not expressly given to the Federal Government is right belonging to the the PEOPLE. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the rights not given to the Federal Government are the property of the Supreme Court to dole out.
City councils are the elected representatives of the PEOPLE. The answer is for the PEOPLE's state representatives to right laws to prevent an oligarchy in a small town from robbing the PEOPLE. Othewise, there is no aspect of human life or government policy (such as capital punishment or abortion) that the Supreme Court as our philosopher kings SHOULD not rule on.
See post #3 and the wording itself: " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
They city (as I understand it) IS compensating the owners just as if a highway were coming through. The problem is that they are forcing the owners to sell not for a highway but for some other private entity to use the land. That's wrong, I agree. I just don't think it is a concern of the Supreme Court.
Yes that's frustrating. But the Court act rightly regardless. It is the duty of the legislature of Connecticut to right this wrong...not the SCOTUS.
Oops! Posted to myself. How embarrassing!
The federal government is supposed to do certain things that it doesn't, like control our borders. When it fails to do such, it is neglecting one of its core duties.
Likewise, within a short period of time, SCOTUS said that interstate commerce involved something that did not move interstate and was never sold - and that was sanctioned by the state government as well.
And then SCOTUS said that taking someone's land for someone else's private use was somehow public.
So, at the end of the day, this isn't about judicial restraint. It's about judicial abidication of a duty to uphold the Constituition.
If Constitutional-mandated prohibitions of government power are not applied, they mean nothing. And in this day and age, SCOTUS has set itself up as the final arbiter of what those prohibitions mean - and apparently, like Humpty Dumpty, to SCOTUS those words mean what they want them to mean.
Well, I for one do not intend to throw in the towel and relinquish my rights to a cabal of nine unelected judges just because they might say something I like once in a while.
You are insisting that the SCOTUS involve itself within the state definitions of "public use". Basically, you seem to be insisting that the SCOTUS involve itself in policy decisions. That's the road that got us Roe v Wade, and the Court deciding at what age and SAT score Capital Punishment becomes "cruel and unusual", etc.
The Court did not abdicate its responsibility. For once, it found a responsibility in which its infinite wisdom was unnecessary.
SCOTUS injected itself into this debate long ago. Since it has, I expect it to follow the 5th and the 14th. They didn't.
The Court did not abdicate its responsibility. For once, it found a responsibility in which its infinite wisdom was unnecessary.
Wrong. For your logic to be correct, they would have refused to hear the case. They didn't.
The 5th Amendment has a "takings clause" and a "public use" clause. At least it used to, it doesn't anymore, it now has a "want clause", if deep pockets "wants" your land and he has enough politicos in his pocket the land is his for the taking.
In America we have a constitutional republic that rules by majority but that majorities rules can not violate anybodys rights. Property rights are basic to the American way of life and without them we are lost. This is not a hard case. Conservatives should oppose this with all the spare change and time they can afford. You know how it goes, they came for my neighbore and I did nothing and then they came for me....
What can I say? I wish all the rulings of the SCOTUS were as easily remedied as this one will be.
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.