Posted on 07/22/2005 1:39:12 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The five-four decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Susette Kelo et al v City of New London, Connecticut et al (June 23, 2005) well could trigger the terrifying risk to private property which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor envisions in her Dissent (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas):
" . . . Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner . . . who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public . . ."
In 1798 Justice Chase wrote, as Justice O'Connor quotes:
" . . . An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact . . . cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislature authority . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. . . . is against all reason and justice . . ."
Or, as that monumental English authority William Blackstone wrote, as quoted by Justice Thomas:
" . . . [T]he law of this land . . . postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property . . ."
Alas, the Majority in Kelo did not see it that way.
There is, however, a solution. It's too common to blame trouble upon a judicial decision when so often the unwanted decision derives from statutory authority or the absence of a statutory prohibition. A State of the Union which lacks adequate protection for private property can amend its statutes – if need be, its State constitution – to prevent a taking of private property for an allegedly superior private purpose.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
I don't know. I think that if siezures become common, so will firebombing the homes of city councilors.
On the whole, this might turn out to be a positive for the nation. I'm certainly not advocating burning down the homes of property thieving bolsheviks, just warning about what might well happen.
Government works best when it works to protect the interests of the people. But, when the people are left to fend for themselves by their elected representatives, and betrayed by the appointed judiciary, what options are open to them?
read later
Goverment seizing private property is one (small) step removed from communism.
The idea that goverment should decide how property should be used with the motivation of increasing goverment revenues is tryanny.
The potential for corruption & graft boggles the mind.
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.