Call for Constitutional Amendment to protect American Citizens from eminent domain violations

us

[janetjanet998]

Time for action...we must start a grass roots drive to pass a Constitutional Amendment to define what "public use" is.

This site has an on-line petition as well as hard copies you can download to pass around your town. We must educate the public as to what is happening. Besides news junkies it seems no one has a clue.
Click here and start the drive!

[janetjanet998]

Hard copies to print out here

[Phantom Lord]

And your going to get 38 states to vote away a power they were just granted?

[P-Marlowe]

Just call it the "Stop the Wal Marts" bill and it will pass in a heartbeat.

[janetjanet998]

We can at least try...at least people will get informed about the issue...most people I talked too have no clue

[Phantom Lord]

And being that the Bush administration supported New London in this matter, and thus by defacto, the RNC supported it, this issue is dead.

People do need to be informed and action needs to be taken at local levels to get laws passed, but a Constitutional Amendment is not going to happen. One of them was ignored to make the decision!

[conserv13]

Each state or locality can have their own eminent domain rules.

[alloysteel]

We DO have a Constitutional amendment to protect us from illegal seizures. As taken from the last two clauses of the Fifth Amendment:

"....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."

What we have is the failure of high justices to understand the simple written word, instead inferring meaning that was never the intent of the persons who drafted the Fifth Amendment in the first place.

[inquest]

We can at least try...at least people will get informed about the issue

I'll agree with that, and hence bump the thread.

But I don't think amending the Constitution is the way to go. It's a simple document, and we should keep it simple. Getting into the habit of amending the Constitution every time SCOTUS gets it wrong will end up making it a lot less simple.

[Dratlatl]

Why does anyone believe passing another amendment would help, when the problem is that the courts are ignoring the ones already in place? Will the new amendment be underlined or something?

[Mayflower Sister]

So what is your solution?

I've signed and forwarded to as many people as I could think of.

George Bush is beginning to disgust me. I was a total true-blue supporter. He's been a disappointment.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

There is no point ammending a document that has been rendered worthless.

If anyone thinks this mess can be remedied by working within the system they are insane.

[jiggyboy]

Recall the blue-state / red-state maps from the election. There are really only a few really hopeless states: MA and CA come to mind immediately of course.

And it has been well-reported here on FR that the DU mob is, surprisingly, just as upset about this as we are -- apartment buildings are commercial property, and ghettoes are very ripe for "redevelopment". As one of the Justices said in the dissent, the down-and-outers are the ones who are gonna get screwed.

So it has a broader base than I myself initially thought.

[Nebr FAL owner]

Passing a Constitutional amendment is extremely difficult and time consuming. However since the problem is at the state level with local governments doing the condemning of property via the eminant domain, getting involved in the state politics will be more effective . It will also take a lot less time than trying to pass a Constitutional amendment thus getting laws passed defining "Public Use "would be a more efficient use of our resources.

[coloradan]

It was funny to read that thread. Sort of a parallel universe, complete with exclamations like "They're just as upset over there are we are here!" and links to each other's thread. The only difference is, they were wrong at first about who penned that evil decision, and we were right.

[Phantom Lord]

Conservatives are against it because we are pro liberty and freedom. The liberals are against it because they are anti-business.

[Busywhiskers]

I agree with you completely. Why go to the effort of passing an amendment when they have already perverted one that is written in pretty clear english.

I am wondering if Congress can limit the SC's jurisdiction over eminent domain cases under Article III, Section 2 of the constitution and then correct this atrocity via legislation.

Any constitutional scholars out there?

[inquest]

So what is your solution?

I'm not the one you asked, but my solution is to encourage further the developments that are already taking place. The U.S. House of Representatives has condemned SCOTUS's reasoning, and moves are afoot in Virginia, Oklahoma, and Missouri to restrain the use of eminent domain. If we can apply political energy towards making our state legislatures pass unequivocal resolutions indicating that use of eminent domain for private development is unconstitutional, it would be far more likely to see results than an attempt at formally amending the U.S. Constitution.

[inquest]

I am wondering if Congress can limit the SC's jurisdiction over eminent domain cases under Article III, Section 2 of the constitution and then correct this atrocity via legislation.

Congress does have the power to limit the court's jurisdiction that way, but it wouldn't overturn any ruling that's already been made. The damage was already done when SCOTUS sanctified this practice. The best solution is an unequivocal statement from legislatures from all across the country rebuking that viewpoint of theirs completely.

[janetjanet998]

bump

[steve-b]

"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism' because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
--Benito Mussolini

Says it all.