Posted on 06/28/2005 11:31:22 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 28, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- Although the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments ruling dominated Monday's headlines, a property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government may seize the home, small business or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to another private citizen -- if the transfer would boost the community's economic development and its tax base.
The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.
"It is appropriate for Congress to take action ... to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said.
"This legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use,' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment," Cornyn said. "Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development."
Cornyn's legislation would clarify that 'public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.
In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders."
He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."
Cornyn called the Supreme Court's June 23, 2005, ruling in Kelo v. City of New London an "alarming decision" that should prompt lawmakers to take action.
"The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development," Cornyn said.
"In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005."
Cornyn also said the Supreme Court's Kelo decision partly vindicates those who supported the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
"That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, Cornyn said, "because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence."
Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. A former Texas Supreme Court justice, Texas attorney general, and Bexar County District judge, Cornyn is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee.
DO agree it wa soutrage that the King had become a despot -
the same situation we now have with our Federal Govt. And
the kings Court. The outrage is deserved but I fear the people no longer care what or how they are governed.did like th eJohn Adams quote on the Federalist "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as th elaws of god,and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it,anarchy and tyranny commense." IMO we have precious little of any of the named
virtues cited by Mr.Adams.
Ah, thanks for the info!
Like I said a few days ago, they shoulda' finished taking all our guns first.
Did you like the poetic justice from those threads? I hope the developer puts that hotel in. I would love to go and witness the wrecking ball knocking down the Justice's house to make way for the development.
Just like homosexuality and gas prices, the outrage will soon turn to indifference and indifference to acceptance and acceptance to normalcy as America continues it's march forward to 1984.
The libs are with us because they see this as a giveaway to Big Business.
The fact that we all agree on something (even for different reasons) should tell us how bad this decision really is. It's worse than we thought!
When the constitution of Madison, Hamilton, & Jefferson is no longer regarded as relevant in deciding cases, why should a piece of legislation by John Cornyn make any difference at all? It's nice to be a paid legislator (great pension and perks) but he's delusional if he thinks he's making the law of the land. That's done across street by the guys wearing the neat black robes.
"They're all for it, they can't wait to start helping their contributors cook up some land confiscation gigs."
Probably true. Maybe the libs can shoo away their pesty supporters by returning to five-minute-hates of John Bolton.
=======================
A private developer has contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel. Yesterday, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel.
The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."
|
|
When in the Course of human events...
...The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States...
...He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them...
...He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance...
...He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...
...For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments...
...For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever...
Does any of this sound familiar concerning today's tyrants who wear black robes instead of ermine robes and a jeweled crown?
"The fact that we all agree on something (even for different reasons) should tell us how bad this decision really is. It's worse than we thought!"
The DU was so pi$$ed off about the decision that they were contemplating asking for a truce with us to work together for the common good of our property rights. Jim pulled the thread about it though.
Read it - it's a great book. Gave it to my dad - blew his mind. Everyone should read this book.
I understand there is a developer who is looking into the possibility of building on Judge Souter's property. LOL
He wants to call it "The Lost Liberty Hotel". I like it.
That thread has now been pulled twice????
Really? It's too bad we couldn't work something out. They keep us divided when we actually have common ground, and we'll never stop these outrages.
Ahhh, you must have linked to the "official" Souter thread. hehe
Letter to Editors:
Here’s a statement from the recent Conference of Mayors regarding the shameful Supreme Court ruling on the 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.”
In other words, the mayors have voted to exercise eminent domain if they believe that such a taking will enhance the city’s tax base. Prior to this ruling by the five socialists on the Supreme Court, private property was protected from such taking except for public good (roads, etc.) and then only for a just compensation to the property owners. It was never to be used to ultimately benefit developers who might covet the property for their own use. Amendment V of the Constitution clearly states: ..”nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Now the leftist Supremes and the mayors think that the phrase "public use" is no longer in the Constitution. Communism triumphs in the US!
Many of us believe that the leftists on the Court have deliberately undermined the people’s right to protection of their private property from unjust government takings. Question for residents of our city: how did our mayor vote at the Mayor’s Conference? Did he vote with the leftist Supremes (and the developers) to take our property unjustly for economic development and added tax base? Inquiring minds want to know.
"The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and courts --not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert that constitution."
Abraham Lincoln, speech in Cincinatti, OH, September 17, 1859
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.