Dear Conference of Mayors: FO&D!!! Byte me! Up yours!
Posted on 06/25/2005 8:17:22 AM PDT by snowsislander
Contact: Rhonda Spears, 202-861-6766 or rspears@usmayors.org; Elena Temple, 202-861-6719 or etemple@usmayors.org, both of the United States Conference of Mayors
WASHINGTON, June 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement of the United States Conference of Mayors Executive Director Tom Cochran on Supreme Court ruling on City of New London Vs. Kelo case:
"The United States Conference of Mayors policy states that the nation's mayors support the right of local governments to retain eminent domain to promote economic development in their individual cities.
"City officials continue to act in a most judicious manner as they exercise fair and balanced judgment in protecting the rights of property owners while planning for the city's overall economic viability.
"The Supreme Court joins with The United States Conference of Mayors, as well as the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the National Council of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association in recognizing that without the use of eminent domain, cities cannot make the changes necessary to sustain healthy economic and demographic growth.
"The power of eminent domain provides elected officials at all levels of governments one of the basic tools they need to ensure the growth and well-being of their communities."
I would say that three branches have conspired here -- the local/state legislative officials (city councils, state legislators), the local/state executives (mayors and governors), and the state courts. Now, SCOTUS has just added its federal collusion.
I hate to do this, because I can tell you are very angry about this law of the Supreme Court's, and that you think it is something new and abominable and against the US Constitution and American tradition.
I agree with you that the law is terrible, and that Americans should be protected in their homes, that they should have a separate law for homes and private life, and that homes are different than all other property. Perhaps the government should be able to as easily take away commercial property to increase tax revenues, so long as it pays fair compensation. Govermment keeps close tabs on business, and "fair" is a relatively objective standard there. Also, it is just business. But when you move to people's houses, it is just a different thing. Even bankruptcy law recognizes that some artifacts are simply different, not property. The bank can take away your furniture and your house, but it cannot take away your wedding ring because your wedding ring, although objectively just a lump of gold, is subjectively something much more emotionally important than that. And even US law of bankruptcy, which is not kind at the liquidation, decides that the emotional value of the wedding ring outweighs the rights of creditors to get their money.
I believe that the appropriate standard is that houses are different, and should not be able to be taken away by eminent domain at all, unless there is a compelling government purpose having to do with health or safety. I don't think that houses should be able to be pulled down even for roads. But that is my view. French law is not very far off of that. Certainly the government can take land, and pay for it, for government purposes, but government purposes does not mean to give to any developer. And when it comes to homes, it is very slow and careful. It is not easy to take a house, because a house is a different thing and everybody everywhere in the world KNOWS that.
American law refuses to recognize any difference, and in this I think it is brutal and wrong. That's what I think.
Now, here is the part that you will not like.
You think that what the Supreme Court has done is not in keeping with American law or history. But I think that, sadly, you are very wrong.
There are a few pillars of American law.
The first is the Common Law of England. Americans, especially those trained as lawyers (I was trained as an American lawyer) love their Common Law. They believe it is much superior to the Civil Law in every way. They are proud and even nationalistic about it.
Under the Common Law, all land belongs to the King. All of it. Nobody ever owns it. The King grants a fief in it, a "fee" in the old term. And "fee simple absolute" was the highest fief there was. This was inheritable, devisable, and could be sold. But it is still a fief. Nobody else can take it from you, but in the Common Law, the king always could take it from you. Historically, the King took the land, even in fee, from those designated traitors to the Crown. The traitor was tortured to death, and his land was taken. His heirs were all disinherited, and their relation to the traitor was deemed to give them a criminality: attainder of the blood.
That IS the Common Law of England, the old Common Law.
Now, that was modified, especially in the English Revolution, to make sure that if the Crown took land held in fee, it had to PAY the landowner for it some value.
Inherited criminal tainting of the blood remained a part of the Common Law, and was only removed in America by the particular clause in the US Constitution that says that Congress shall pass no bill of attainder. But the Common Law of England, except as modified by the US Constitution or US statutory law, is the law of America.
When the English grandees decided that they could operate agricultural land at a great profit, the Enclosure Acts were passed, which allowed small landholders and tenants to all be driven off the property and large estates to be formed. These tenants did have rights of various sorts in the property, but these were all overridden by eminent domain. Those people were left in penury, and it was quite intentional: penurious farmers stripped of their land were easily reduced to dirt cheap wage laborers or forced into the military ranks.
The Common Law was extremely brutal in this regard, and it was the Enclosure Acts that provided the impetus for England's first great capital rise, and also for her larger-than-normal military capacity. Social unrest was siphoned off to the colonies.
Nothing like this was even possible under Civil Law, where land ownership was absolute.
Now, quite honestly, Americans are very proud of their Common Law, but I think they should not be. The Common Law was the law of aristocracy, English aristocracy, which was purposely used to impoverish the English peasantry, drive them off the land, and create security forces large enough to be able to suppress any sort of revolt. Beaten in this way, but able to win foreign wars more easily, the English had a sort of pride come out of it. But the actual historical facts of the Common Law of land takings is brutal, disgusting and immoral. There is nothing to be proud about at all in this aspect of the Common Law tradition.
It was imported into America and became part of the American Common Law tradition. The first great victims of it were the American Indians, who were essentially driven, by a harsh form of eminent domain, onto reservations. "Fair compensation" was paid in the form of treaty promises, but of course the Indians had no power, and could not enforce the rights, and were paid almost nothing. It is a Common Law saying "No remedy, no right", which means that whatever a paper says, if there is no way to enforce it at law, the right does not REALLY exist.
That is the American Law Tradition, brought over from England.
Americans are superstitious about their Constitution, practically treating the document as second to the King James Bible in holiness. But Americans bemoan all the time that "the Constitution is not respected". The Common Law tradition of America, of which Americans are so fiercely proud, has been for a thousand years "No remedy, no right." If the Constitution says you have a right, on that piece of paper, but you cannot enforce the right, and there is no court or authority that you can go to to make good the right, then the right does not in fact exist at all, according to the ancient legal tradition of the United States and England.
When I point this out to people, they characteristically become infuriated at me, because what I am saying is that the sacred US Constitution is, in fact, seriously flawed and aspects of it have no force at all, and the Common Law itself is pretty cruel and not entirely admirable in important parts.
These two things come together to a tee on the land takings issue.
What the Supreme Court did is to say that government can treat you like an Indian. You are individually weak and powerless. You have no bargaining power. A document says that you have some rights to be treated "fairly", but "fair" is as determined by the authorities taking from you. The Americans did not just TAKE the land from the Indians. They negotiated treaties. This was a genuflection to the belief that, to be "fair" there must be "process". In other words, if I write it down on paper, and you sign it, and I rip you off and oppress you by the terms of that paper, I am not guilty of anything (even if the difference in power between us forced you to sign the paper), and you were a fool for giving up your rights. The government does not just TAKE the land from you using eminent domain. It negotiates a treaty with you, in which it dictates the terms, you are forced to accept them, and then everyone else, enamoured as they are with the American system and Common Law, will close ranks and say "He was given due process, the law is respected, he has nothing to complain about."
And if you DO complain anyway, you're a crank. A whack job. Nobody will support you, because you complaint really is that the Common Law is BAD, fundamentally EVIL, and that the US Constitution isn't worth anything to protect you against this...in other words, there's something wrong with the Constitution that this could happen to you.
Americans will not admit that there is anything wrong with their Constitution. It's like saying there's something wrong with the Bible, as far as they are concerned. They will not acknowledge that the ancient Common Law was really pretty oppressive and atrocious. It is "tradition" and therefore good.
What the Supreme Court has done to individual landholders is put them in the position of Indians in the 1800s. They have rights, theoretically, but no remedies when they get screwed (which means, according to the Common Law tradition, that they actualy DON'T have any rights).
The majority of people didn't care about the Indians then, and still don't. And since the majority of people's houses won't be taken now either, the modern Indians who get screwed, maybe YOU, won't get enough sympathy to give them any justice either.
The flaw lies in the Common Law itself, and in the US Constitution itself. What is being done is completely in line with US history and tradition, sadly. The problem is not that the Common Law tradition and US Constitution are not being followed. That's a dodge. The problem is that they ARE, and the outcome is BAD.
But those things cannot be said in America without being stoned alive, as we are about to see.
"The fact that SCOTUS took the case de facto made it a federal decision that guides all the states -- no matter how much lip service they paid to states' right in the decision."
I'm not sure I see what you mean. The ones who were opposing eminent domain were basing their argument on the US Constitution. They were saying it was a Constitutional issue. So obviously the SCOTUS is in its right to determine whether or not that rationale is valid. And the Court then decided that it is NOT a Constitutional issue -- it's up to the states.
Now again, I'm not sure if I'm in favor of states' rights in this case. I'm weighing my support of states' rights against my support of property rights. I also think it's possible the the SCOTUS is, after all, the correct body to determine the line between public and private use, as O'Connor, Thomas, and the other minority members argued. It's just a bit odd, to me, if I were to myself on the side of saying the SCOTUS should be making those kinds of decisions. That would be an exception to my usual thinking on such matters, since I usually want the SCOTUS to have as little power as possible.
Each and every last one of these traitors should be removed from office at the ballot box.
I appreciate very much what you have had to say. It has been an education in British history. The only problem is that we are Americans with our own culture and history. The reason the Japanese did not attempt to invade en masse the U.S. mainland during WWII is because they knew there was a firearm behind every blade of grass waiting for them.
Dear Conference of Mayors: FO&D!!! Byte me! Up yours!
I guess they'd rather seize people's property to promote economic development rather than lower their property taxes and strike out stupid regulations and ordinances that prevent economic growth from taking place.
With apologies to La Raza: For the government, everything. For the people, nothing.
The vultures are in a feeding frenzy!
Keep Your Powder Dry!
Lock 'n Load!
Be Ever Vigilant!
What I mean is that SCOTUS's ruling did not leave it up to the state of Connecticut alone (which would be the pure state's rights position). Instead, it created a national precedent (using the Connecticut case) for all the rest of the states.
Prior to this ruling, elected state and local thieves were unsure how far they could go with eminent domain. They weren't sure how their particular state supreme courts would rule, so they were somewhat inhibited. Now, thieves in every state assume (and probably correctly) that any similar case would ultimately be accepted and adjudicated in their favor by the US Supreme Court. In turn, the state supreme courts, knowing this also, are much more likely to rule in favor of the thievery, knowing that otherwise they will just be overturned by SCOTUS.
The mayor and city manager of the small city I live close to have been trying to force downtown bars out for the past year because they want to revitalize the downtown area. They think the bars are an eye sore. One of the bars has been there for over 50 years. They serve sandwiches, etc, so it's not just a bar. The owner and at least one of the other bar owners have filed suit in Federal Court, because it will affect their livelihood. Obviously, they can now force the bars out. They were probably jumping for joy when they heard about this. The city manager already has strong arm tactics that he has used with other businesses. He "demands" they do things. It was bad before this ruling but it's going to get a LOT worse now.
I could not disagree more with your assessment that this is a positive thing for the economy or that this will unburden capitalism. Capitalism will not last long if the smallest stakeholders effectively have no property rights. This is a victory for corporatism, not capitalism.
The unionists were not wrong to organize against what they perceived to be corrupt power. Collective action (as in the refusal of UAL workers to accept compromises with the corporation) can be self-defeating. But there are legitimate and positive uses of this form of power.
I also do not agree that American homeowners will simply forget about this. For one, I certainly won't be making any more urban real estate investments. The sight of bulldozers bearing down on the homeowner in New Londo (and what I assume will be a huge crowd) may in fact be a Tiananmen Square moment, a moment in which capitalism is defended from corporatism and plutocracy.
Point well taken. Thank you.
Let the greedy socialist oink oink know that we think about his egalitarian beliefs:
The U.S. Conference of Mayors
Tom Cochran, Executive Director
1620 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
Tel. 202.293.7330 ~ Fax 202.293.2352
info@usmayors.org
I wonder if our esteemed mayor signed onto this horrendous statement? I'll ask him, but since he is the very silken lining in the pockets of developers, I think I know the answer.
Yeah ... right.
If you believe that ... I have a bridge on the east side of Manhattan I can sell you.
They are incorrect.
The decision has made voters more aware of whom they should be electing to positions of power in their communities - and voting out those who support this ruling.
Mayors need to be reminded they aren't Kings.
It's also apparent we have collusion between the two parties in power.
"What I mean is that SCOTUS's ruling did not leave it up to the state of Connecticut alone (which would be the pure state's rights position). Instead, it created a national precedent (using the Connecticut case) for all the rest of the states."
Yes, exactly: it said this is not a Constitutional issue. If the Constitution doesn't prohibit these kinds of "takings" for one state, why would it prohibit it for other states?
And again, that's not to say I agree with the Supreme Court opinion. I'm just saying: Of course it's a precedent; why wouldn't it 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.