Posted on 06/25/2005 10:42:41 AM PDT by lowbridge
The Fifth Amendment reads:
"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."
This should be changed to read:
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 and permission of the property owner.
So what if it did stop a project? Would the sky fall? Justification for ANY taking whatsoever is merely arbitrary and subjective; everyone has a different vision of what's best for everyone, and as long as eminent domain isn't directly impacting you, you turn a blind eye to it. There is no such thing as a "public good". All "public interest" means is some individuals have more rights than others. And if I really do have ownership in "public property" I'm going to go put up "my" portion of the local [insert coerced philanthropy project here] for sale Monday.
I surely do not believe life and civilization would end tomorrow if owning property actually meant something. And for "public" construction projects, it would force people to be creative if they had to find another route / site (only 5 percent of the United States is developed land); or re-evaluate whether the expenditure of taxpayer monies for the given project was truly necessary to begin with.
What this broadened eminent domain power will be used for more than anything is Transit-Oriented Development, Smart Growth, Light Rail lines, and the like (just like they are doing here in Charlotte North Carolina), trying to force everyone to live a new lifestyle crammed into urban city centers and abolishing the suburbs. Here in Charlotte, the justification is air quality, even though there is no air quality problem according to government statistics, even though there are cheaper, more property-friendly alternatives to light rail. This is a solution in search of a problem, and yet private property rights are being raped for some bureaucrat's grandiose vision of Charlotte becoming a "World Class City" (and this particular municipal government bureaucrat is paid more than the President of the United States, to DO the plundering).
I would feel more secure in knowing I actually own my property and doing away with eminent domain completely, than in leaving it to some elite bureaucrats, unelected busybodies -- and now, wealthy developers -- I don't even know (on EITHER side of "the aisle") deciding my life for me. Imagine combining the effects of this broadened use of eminent doman with the effects of the new bankruptcy laws coming into effect this October: you may now be thrown out of your home and compensated with pennies on the dollar to repay a gigantic loan, with no chance for bankruptcy or a fresh start. That's the ultimate irony, creating "blight" by using the all-knowing superiority of government to cure blight. Perhaps government just wants your land because it makes more and more people dependent upon the beneficient wisdom of politicians and their well-heeled cronies in the private sector. When you reduce every act done in the name of the public down to fundamentals, it is only a consolidation of power, which we were warned about in our founding era. That's why the lines between Republicans and Democrats blur today.
I do believe a novel corollary to the Court's decision would be citizens "may seize [politican's] homes and businesses against their will for [civil liberties] development." If you can justify eminent domain, then tell me, what is the difference in who is doing the taking?
Sam Colt is one of my relatives
Genweb traces back to 1550ad for our common ancestor Oliver Colt in England
I never live in the past or suffer tyrants or fools and I have little patience
That is about as subliminal as I get
Yeah, we always have that. We ought to use our system of debate and counsel first. Plato's Politeia is still around, other systems come and go at frequent intervals.
I understand what you're saying.
Still, even with a warrant, it's compelling against the suspect's will.
...A few months ago I was staying at a hotel that hosted a lot of local company's managers. Since they have had problems in the past with these managers causing problems if they are out too late, the company started up a cerfew. To enforce this, they station a (presumably off-duty) police officer in the lobby to get the names of people who come in after a certain time of night. ...
Shades of old high school band trips. How old are these guys anyway?
This action was brought by the city of New London CT. I live in CT and our Governor, Jodi Rell reacted to the decision by stating that it was a matter the legislature should handle. I agree and hope she will follow through by supporting legislation that will make the decision moot. I think it is an elegant solution to the matter by putting elected officials, not insulated judges, on record regarding our property rights.
I am simply loathe to open up the Bill of Rights to changes. I don't want to think of Chuck Schumer and the second amendment.
For instance the City of Corpus Christi, Texas recently finished a widening of a street behind one of the shopping malls. This required condemning the corner house on several of the cross streets to gain the additional real estate to expand the street from two lanes and an open drainage ditches to two lanes each direction plus a middle turn lane. It was a much needed improvement to relieve traffic on nearby streets, but several of the home owners were not happy with the amount paid for their property. Most were not able to buy similar houses in equivalent neighborhoods without going further into debt than they already were. Others were retirees who had paid off their mortgages and had intended to live the rest of their lives in those homes. Considering the benefits to nearby businesses and people driving by the area, I don't see why they shouldn't have been paid at least the value of commercial realestate for their land.
applause. I can think of a number of other things to stick in there too...
That would be a valid approach. Value the right-of-way as if it were commercial parcels. That would knock the value of residential property into the big leagues.
Efforts to "fix" the Fifth are doomed to fail as long as the court has justices who refuse to be restrained by the text of the document.
We could start this discussion by asking a simple question: What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? And how long ago did the Court start nullifcation by interpretation? In the case of the Second, almost 70 years ago with Miller.
There is a saying in politics: personnel is policy. This matter is a really a personnel problem. Impeach the Justices who cannot or will not read the plain text. Replace them with Justices who will.
Start at a more fundamental level. The simple question is not simple at all without a good foundation. What is the nature and origin of private property? We will find little agreement even on this forum when we dig deep enough, but we will find that political thought on the entity has been divided into several ideas since the beginning of civilization.
Better idea, impeach the judges who ruled badly on this issue. Trust me when I say that if they can find away around the clear language of the takings clause, they will be able to get around anything.
Awesome, I wish I could think on my feet that fast!!
I love the thought, but that's the purpose of the states power to condemn property under eminent domain, to take the property against the will and over the objections of the property owner. The purpose and use of the taking is at issue, not whether the state can take it.
Yep. That's the only way to be sure there's no more abuse.
LOL! That was my reaction where I heard about this rule. Apparently they are all ages 30s to 60s.
I am simply loathe to open up the Bill of Rights to changes. I don't want to think of Chuck Schumer and the second amendment.
Okay, I see your motivation for making this argument. I don't want to see our Constitution tampered with either. I would much rather see the Court changed. Even if the Constitution was changed we could see rulings that would disregard it because it just does not fit with the Zimbabwean view on things. International law is important you know. Can these clowns be impeached? When is enough, enough?
Thanks. I appreciate the comments and agree.
Good points. This case sure does beg the question of 'insulating judges' though. Take the Ninth Circuit Court for example. Please... Not even for an example, just take them.
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.