Posted on 10/17/2015 4:38:07 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The Volokh ConspiracyOpinion A constitutional amendment to overrule Kelo v. City of New London and protect property rights against abusive takings
National Review columnist and prominent political commentator Charles C.W. Cooke argues that a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s widely despised 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London might attract broad bipartisan support. Unlike most amendments proposed in recent years, its appeal would not be limited to just one side of the political spectrum.
Susette Kelo’s famous “little pink house,” whose condemnation was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Kelo ruled that the Constitution allowed the government to take private property from one private owner and give it to another simply on the theory that the new owner might promote more “economic development.” Such condemnations often inflict great harm on poor, minority, and politically weak property owners, and also routinely tend to destroy more economic value than they create. In the Kelo case itself, the condemned property remains empty to this day, used mainly by a colony of feral cats.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A better amendment would be to eliminate birthright citizenship.
You want the government to take private property?
No. I just don’t think it’s anywhere near as big a problem as birtright citizenship.
Not by me, I remember this case perfectly well. There should not be an amendment, the case in question should be overturned and major compensatory damages should be payed out to Kelo...........
I think it would be easier to get the State legislatures to change their immanent domain laws to prevent a Kelo situation.
Then the federal government still could do it.
I don’t think it’s a one or the other decision.
amendment isn’t necessary. just good judges or vacate the supreme court for about 10 years.
I still recall the backlash on Kelo where it was petitioned to eminent domain Souter’s house and turn it into a casino or something.
I know there are good arguments that universal birthright citizenship is not intended in the 14th Amendment, but I don’t have much hope of winning that.
I think a new Amendment to make it clear is needed.
You want the government to take private property?They take it all the time and they don't have to use eminent domain. They take it using environmental regulations for one, and there is no compensation. They don't even "take it" they just tell you you can't use it for any reason etc.
At least with eminent domain there is almost always fair market value compensation.
BTW, the federal government didn't take the land, the court just ruled it legal for the City of New London to take it.
If you want an amendment to protect private property it would have to protect the taking by any agency for any reason. Otherwise it would be a complete waste of time.
Sometimes the pols can walk and chew gum at the same time!
But if we’re considering Constitutional amendements, I’d rather get one that’s much more needed IMHO.
Here’s another item for a dream Sheet:
Put some hard limitations in Article 3 of the Constitution to rein in the Supreme Court.
The fifth amendment already provides the necessary protection in every case except when a majority of the Supreme Court is crooked, corrupt and criminal - not to mention illiterate.
And given the above conditions, how would a new amendment help?
A new amendment? There was nothing wrong with the old one until John Paul Stevens CHANGED the words from “public use” to “public benefit”. Congress should have removed him and those who voted in concurrence immediately.
IMO if we employ an amendment to nationalize the standards for eminent domain, then we will have precluded the several States from instituting yet more stringent protections for private property against eminent domain takings. Natural Law competition among the States is a better way to demonstrate the trade-offs between facilitating redevelopment and instituting competition between speculative landowners and fractional ownership. It is my hope that we may see more active markets in real estate options as a way of precluding the need for "planning."
The only place in the US that you can actually OWN property is in most parts of Alaska.
Everywhere else, you rent.
Until THAT particular taking is reversed, quibbling about Kelo with the true owners of our "private property" is a waste of time.
No amendment is needed. Kelo is antithetical to the Constitution and should just be declared “null and void” as ALL UNJUST LAW has to be—and we have a DUTY to disobey Unjust Law (Justice Marshall/Nuremberg Trials and MLK,jr).
Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution and the SCOTUS can not constitutionally change the meaning and intent of the document.
This illusion that the Supreme Court has power to just eliminate our Natural Rights form God which are UNALIENABLE, is absurd. The justices who vote to violate our Constitution need to be in prison for Treason.
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.