Eminent Domain (essay by Fred Thompson)

I'm with Fred ^ | 07/30/07 | Fred D Thompson

[SE Mom]

Last week, California officials in National City voted unanimously to use eminent domain to take over more than 600 properties—including a nonprofit youth center dedicated to keeping local kids out of gangs and off the street. They plan to give this land to local private developers for a group of condominiums.

It’s said that a man’s home is his castle, but across America some property owners are being rooked by local bureaucrats and politicians and having their private property confiscated by local governments for the supposed public good.

Most people probably think that if they buy a home or a small business that they will get to keep what they purchased. After all, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

But in 2005, the Supreme Court, in Kelo v. New London, held that the government could take private property – even a person’s home – and give that property to a large private corporation for that business’s private use. As Justice O’Connor wrote in her scathing dissent, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded – i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process.”

Not surprisingly, the public responded to Kelo with outrage. Since then, numerous states passed legislation aimed at curbing an abuse of eminent domain powers. In the 2006 election cycle, 12 states held referendums proposing to limit state governments’ abilities to confiscate property a la Kelo. Ten states approved the proposals, each with strong majorities.

...

[RightWhale]

Unfortunately private property was only a secondary reference in the Constitution by implication in the 4th and 5th Amendments, and it is also implied in the 8th Commandment if we want to reference ancient law. One of many things taken for granted that are thereby liable to being chipped away in the regieme of the state.

[LexBaird]

Now, nearly two weeks ago, members of both parties in Congress introduced legislation in the House that would deny federal economic funding to state and local governments upon a finding that those governments had abused their power of eminent domain by seizing private property that would be used for private economic development. This is an important issue, and Members of Congress need to act to make sure that federal funds are not used to enable these sorts of takings of private property.

The essence of the Kelo decision (which I vehemently disagree with) was that the 5th amendment allowed this sort of taking, but that the individual States could make the protections more stringent.

I thought Fred was for State solutions to these sort of issues. Why is he now advocating a Federal fix? How can the Federal govt. intervene in something that the SCOTUS has declared legal under the Constitution? How can Congress decide the States had abused a power by doing something that has been declared to NOT be an abuse?

So, help me out here Fredheads: is he for the Feds intervening in the way States run things or not?

[jellybean]

If you'd like to join the FRedExpress let me know.

[billbears]

Our Founders placed respect for private property as a key principle when writing out nation’s Constitution......If the Supreme Court will not protect our right to ownership, then political leaders must step up to the challenge

But it's not their business is it Fred? Fred being a 'Frederalist' and all he would know that....at least under original intent

If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest.....

We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states. --Chief Justice Marshall, Barron v Baltimore, 1833

[ontap]

So you're a big Fred supporter and he hires one man for his campaign and that doe's it for you! Not what I would call a staunch supporter.

Here's that Boogie man you're so concerned with.The man seems pretty up front to me.

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham www.energy.gov Spencer Abraham Spencer Abraham was sworn in as the tenth Secretary of Energy on January 20, 2001, following his confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Prior to becoming Energy Secretary, Abraham represented Michigan in the United States Senate from 1995 to 2001. Elected in 1994, he served on the Budget, Commerce, Science and Transportation, Judiciary, and Small Business Committees. He also chaired two-important subcommittees: Manufacturing and Competitiveness, and Immigration. A forceful voice for the business community and free enterprise, Abraham endorsed policies and practices that promote and enhance America's competitiveness and global leadership. Among other things, Abraham was a leader in the Senate on support of free trade, legal and regulatory reform, and tax reform. Representing Michigan in the Senate made Abraham keenly aware of the many issues impacting manufacturers, businesses, and consumers. In addition, Abraham was widely viewed by his colleagues and most observers as the Senator with the best understanding of high-tech policy and issues and the contributions this important economic sector makes to America's economy and global success. Among other accomplishments, Abraham authored the Electronic Signature in Global and National Commerce Act, establishing a federal framework for on-line contracts and signatures; the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, and the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which protects Internet domain names for businesses and persons against copyright and trademark infringements. Maintaining affable relationships with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Abraham authored twenty-two pieces of legislation that have been signed into law, an unprecedented accomplishment for a freshman Senator. Before his election to the Senate, Abraham served as co-chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) from 1991 to 1993. Prior to his tenure at the NRCC and following a successful term as the Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Abraham was tapped to serve as Deputy Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle from 1990 to 1991. In this senior position, he worked closely with the Vice President and senior administration officials, managing the daily operations of the Vice President's office, budget, and staff. Abraham was also active in the affairs of the Vice President's Competitiveness Council, the Vice President's operation designed to provide administrative leadership on issues pertaining to U.S. business competitiveness. At 30, Abraham was elected to serve as chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, a position he held from 1983 to 1990. Abraham took over a party deeply in debt and not holding any major positions in the state government, but quickly began to reestablish the party as one of the strongest state political operations in the country. Spencer Abraham and his wife, Jane, live in Michigan and Virginia with their three children. He holds a law degree from Harvard University and is a native of East Lansin

[Eastbound]

This should shoot down the rumor that Fred is for globalization and the NAU with all its programs to take millions of acres of private land to build a spider web of super highways all over the country.

[ejonesie22]

He is still a looser, there are at least 20 people that live in my compound with better qualifications. Some have extensive experience in large corporate retail. Hell one was the produce manager at a Super Wal Mart...

He finally saw the light but can still get us some awesome discounts on ammo and supplies...

[ontap]

I wish! These guys are gonna keep this crap up no matter what we do.

[ejonesie22]

Yeah, as if...

[samtheman]

respect, support, accolades, you get all that... just don’t expect me to send money :)

[ontap]

So who are you for!

[ontap]

How in the world could you have read the article and come up with that post?

[ejonesie22]

Did you check the tagline?

Though that guy who got the one vote in that straw poll the other day has caught my interest...

[samtheman]

Yeah. He’s quite an ogre, isn’t he?

[ejonesie22]

I love ya friend but we really need to work on that whole irony/sarcasm thing...

[traviskicks]

"If the Supreme Court will not protect our right to ownership, then political leaders must step up to the challenge."




Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Eastbound]

"These guys are gonna keep this crap up no matter what we do."

That, my friend, is the sad truth. It only remains to be seen how far down the road they can get with it before the public outrage stuffs the whole dam thing in a wood chipper.

[ejonesie22]

Damn, and I was putting together a care package for the Paul campaign...

[ontap]

I have no idea what you’re all about! Do you support Fred Thompson or not.

[ontap]

Well! i have to admit I fell for it all the way!LOL