Posted on 06/24/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by ken21
Editorial The Limits of Property Rights Published: June 24, 2005 The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Still, the dissenters provided a useful reminder that eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
a couple of people above made the same observation about the nyt.
as for what to do? stand by the president when he nominates a replacement(s) to the u.s. supreme court. i think he'll put up conservatives. and this is why the democrats are so hot at the moment.
Addressed at that level then dispensed with at that level.
Got to get this meme established, thoughtomator!
Pretty much. We're on the road to serfdom..
If enough furor, most states will slam a lid on this. But what to do about Uncle Sam?
Ugh. I don't even wanna think about it. But read the Preamble to the Constitution. I think its authors meant for it to be re-read and acted upon when/if the Constitution itself were to be so twisted as it is today.
Amazingly Applicable Trivia: It only took 92 years for the Gubmint to legalize the completely legal State seizure of any property. The Federal Government, in 1913, applied the 16th Amendment (which some, to this day, will swear was never properly ratified; but no matter...) to begin seizing property in the form of income. In 2005, the Legal work completed with the SCOTUS' nullification of Takings Clause stated in the 5th Amendment now enables government to seize real property with the flimsiest of excuses.
All they now need is a municipal official to round up the needed political support, and your property no longer belongs to you, for any purpose as long as it can be called "improvement". You don't have to violate any laws to be a target ... it's that simple. Just breathe. Work hard all your life. Save and acquire property. Or, God forbid, hold an inflammatory political opinion. Where's the offense here?
"America: Land of decree, home of the slave"
No, it's not. There is no justification while there is still remedy under law. Load up on law books.
There is a handful of posters here who've never met a statist power grab that didn't give them an orgasm. They come out on the side of expanded government power on every issue.
ccccc
I remember reading that the USSC has ALWAYS voted on the sides of the elites regardless of left or right.
The elites want to be able to take private property so the Judges give the elites what they want same as always.
Kennedy basically said real estate ownership is a collective property right not an individual property right.
Perhaps we should put some NONlawyers on the USSC.
aLL politics are local.
What developer is not not going to be able to buy off a local zoning or commission board?
How about playing iwth the definition of blight? Blight means not earning enough tax money.
kennedy knows better, i think.
something turns these justices after they arrive on the court.
Perhaps we should revisit the court packing concept and create a group of term limited justices that out number the lifers.
you can try.
attempts to change the court haven't worked, fortunately. fdr wanted to expand it to 15 members to suit his purposes, and even with his clout, couldn't.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
From Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion,
The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the property, as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever. At the time of the founding, dictionaries primarily defined the noun “use” as “[t]he act of employing any thing to any purpose.” 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary ofthe English Language 2194 (4th ed. 1773) (hereinafter Johnson). The term “use,” moreover, “is from the Latin utor, which means ‘to use, make use of, avail one’s self of, employ, apply, enjoy, etc.” J. Lewis, Law of Eminent Domain §165, p. 224, n. 4 (1888) (hereinafter Lewis). When the government takes property and gives it to a private individual, and the public has no right to use the property, it strains language to say that the public is “employing” the property, regardless of the incidental benefits that might accrue to the public from the private use. The term “public use,” then, means that either the government or its citizens as a whole must actually “employ” the taken property. See id., at 223 (reviewing found-ing-era dictionaries).
Justice Thomas believes that words mean something. The majority on the court just changed the definition of "public use" to "any public purpose".
It is just like they long ago changed the freedom of speech (oral) and of the press (written) to include expressions which are neither oral or written. Burning the flag is now considered protected free speech. Is self-immolation far behind? And if so, what about the suicide bomber? Is that protected free speech?
The Constitution is not a living document, it is a written document. To uphold the Constitution is to retain the meaning of the written word.
I just see blood being shed over these actions before it is all over.
Damn straight, that, or a post expropriation visit to said stolen property to distribute a bit of PCE, DDT, lead powder, etc... on it.
The same crap happened with Shenandoah National Park too. Unfortunately, we haven't demonstrated a quick response to this by sticking up for our neighbors either...
"But you see Big Government is ok as long as the Republicans are in control of it."
That is the dangerous thing here. The left has been demonized so much that the majority of the sheeple turn to the republican party. Now that the so called "right" has actually moved to the left, once again the American people lose. We need to take our party back.
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.