Posted on 06/30/2005 11:58:34 AM PDT by CHARLITE
Five Supreme Court Justices with myriad educational degrees fumbled the simple meaning of the word “public”. Apparently the new meaning of the term “public use” is any use involving people. This is a brazen moving of the goal posts to rig the game in favor of powerful corporations and political interests. The Kelo vs. New London recision (it’s not a decision) is nothing less than a nail in the coffin of government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Here are five reasons why this has happened.
BIG GOVERNMENT IS #1: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and, of course, Kennedy) removed any doubt that the poor or middle class matter to them. Many of my liberal friends are very passionate about helping others, but must realize that their faith is poorly placed in modern liberalism. This movement is about aggrandizing government more than helping others.
The “IT CAN’T BE THAT SIMPLE” DOCTRINE: Eminent domain gave the right to government to force the sale of private property to the government when needed for a public use, with the stipulation that the private property owner be given just compensation. There is no confusion in the 5th Amendment as to the definition of “public use”. The government is public, the rest is private. Simple. But, no, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court believes religiously that nothing is simple. This is the bedrock “truth” that modern liberalism hinges on. Times have changed, and the meaning of “public use” must also have changed.
BIG BUSINESS FITS BIG GOVERNMENT LIKE A GLOVE: Power responds to power, period. The more powerful the government, the less leverage there is for the weak. Large corporations can negotiate and use their influence to swing everything their way. Small businesses are treated as just another blip on the radar screen. Simply put, big government disregards small businesses but naturally responds to the influence of big businesses.
CONSTITUTION, WHAT CONSTITUTION? When I was a kid, the Supreme Court ruled things constitutional or unconstitutional. That was their job description. From the 1960s until Roe v. Wade, the Court gradually assumed the role as grantors of unenumerated rights, previously the charge of the state legislatures. With the constitutional gumbo decision in Roe, combining multiple amendments to create one right to abortion, the Court snatched the issue away from the people and their elected officials. What is worse nowadays is that the emphasis isn’t even on constitutionality, it’s on what the majority of the Court finds is most important. Justice Anthony Kennedy cited other countries’ constitutions in his majority opinion banning capital punishment for minors.
Thursday’s travesty, articulated by John Paul Stevens, states that “local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community.” What about the constitution? Do local authorities “know best” what is constitutional and what is not? This is no different than a criminal court judge turning a suspect over to the arresting policeman, saying, “you know best what do with him. Good luck.” This is jurisprudence by tea leaves, nothing more.
THEY THINK WE DON’T CARE: This last motivating factor is a critique of the average American milquetoast. It’s quite possible that we are natural-born suckers. I was unaware that I was so bland and naïve until I met my Latin American wife. In Latin America, nothing works unless you are very persistent and/or know someone in charge.
My innate tendency toward civil obedience drives my wife crazy. In this country, we roll along as if nothing could be amiss. Why do you think they keep sending those Nigerian confidence e-mails? Because we fall for them. We’re lambs, and wolves eat lambs. Until the vast hordes of Middle America wake up, this kind of tyrannical jurisprudence will continue. Let’s hope you don’t get woken up by a bulldozer outside your door. That would be too late.
What will the damage be for this momentary lapse of reason? While the Court could have been more final in its ruling (they left open the possibility of states making the final decision, or recision), this is still a precedent, and a dangerous one. The slippery slope could lead to open season for big corporations on middle-class communities everywhere.
What’s the solution? I have one. When one of the big corporations wants to use the government to secure them a new store to serve the public, the catch will be the following; Since the store’s aim is “public use”, all profits rightfully belong to the community that it serves. That sounds more like public use to me.
Has to be the gross sales. Accounting magic makes it too easy for the net profit to disappear. Thus it is communism.
His suggestion of "net" profit would lead only to despotic fascism -- third world here we ARE.
With this ruling, however, the USSCT has outlawed capitalism.
Private proeprty is NOT just land. It is also any holdings. Contracts, shares of stocks, dry-goods, etc. If Carl Icahn wants to take over GM he need only bribe the US Senate to force dissident shareholders to relinquish shares at some set price. Smaller scale -- to bribe the state legislature of the state in which the corporation resides.
The above court decision will eventually be used by liberal cities to remove churches from their property.
The only answer is impeachment. I believe it is the responsibility of the House and Senate to do this.
This is a horrible idea -- the elected state and local armed robbers actually stealing the land, plus their SCOTUS co-conspirators, would love nothing better. A more appropriate suggestion would be for the profits or a hefty percentage thereof to go to the original property owner.
Momentary?
This all began in 1913 with the institution of the income tax. When people are not entitled to the fruits of their own labor, and own nothing, they become slaves.
"In recent months, Costco has endured bad nationwide publicity for its role in an unholy scheme to deprive Cottonwood Christian Center of its 18-acre property in Cypress. The City Council voted to take the land by eminent domain last month so that it can make way for a tax-generating Costco retail center. The rationale is simple: Churches don't pay much in taxes, but it's estimated that Costco will provide $400,000 a year to the city's budget."
http://www.ocregister.com/commentary/columns/greenhut/2002/greenhut20020623.shtml
I don't think that's the only answer (although it should be part of the solution). We need to make sure our elected employees in state and local government pass laws to prevent this in our states, and we need to punish at the ballot box any elected crook who tries to steal anyone's land.
The Congress should also immediately pass a bill denying federal funding to any development project that relies on eminent domain to steal private property.
Thanks for the info and the link.
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.