Posted on 02/15/2016 5:20:59 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Antonin Scalia, the conservative legal giant who died on Saturday at age 79, will be remembered for his outspoken views on legal issues ranging from abortion to gun control. Scalia's fierce opposition to eminent domain abuse is also worth remembering.
In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kelo v. City of New London. At issue was that Connecticut municipality's desire to bulldoze a working-class neighborhood and hand the razed land over to a private developer working in cahoots with the Pfizer corporation. The idea underlying the city's scheme was that if people were forced out of their homes, their vacant properties could be put to more profitable purposes, thereby swelling the city's tax coffers.
The problem with this approach is that it violates the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that the government may only take private property for a public use (and it must pay just compensation when it does). Taking property from one private party and handing it over to another private party, by contrast, is plainly inconsistent with all traditional notions of public use, a reality the Supreme Court itself acknowledged back in 1954, when it upheld an eminent domain "urban renewal" taking on the grounds that it served a "public purpose," a far more permissive, and therefore government friendly, concept than public use.
During the February 2005 oral argument in the Kelo case, the lawyer for New London urged the justices to give government officials the broadest leeway possible in eminent domain disputes.
But Justice Scalia was not feeling so generous. Under your theory, Scalia asked the lawyer, "you could take [private property] from A and give it to B if B is richer, and would pay higher municipal taxes, couldn't you?"
"Yes, Your Honor," the lawyer conceded.
"For example," interjected Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes. Now, is that okay?"
"Yes, Your Honor, that would be okay," the lawyer conceded again. In other words, because private property can almost always be put to a more profitable purpose, the government can effectively take any private property it wants for any "development" scheme it happens to cook up. So much for the text of the Fifth Amendment.
In the end, of course, Scalia and O'Connor were outvoted. Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, gave the government all the leeway it needed to kick people out of their homes and wipe their neighborhoods off the map. "The disposition of this case," Stevens announced, "turns on the question of whether the City's development plan serves a 'public purpose.' Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field."
The Kelo case has been in the news again recently thanks to the presidential campaign of Republican Donald Trump. In Trump's oft-stated view, Kelo is a "wonderful" decision that should be respected and emulated. Trump is also known for trying to personally profit from Kelo-style land grab.
Trump's position is of course totally anathema to the position of Justice Scalia, who once went so far as to compare Kelo to Dred Scott. Perhaps when the next Republican presidential debate rolls around, one of the moderators will consider asking Trump why it is that he prefers the legal views of John Paul Stevens over those of Antonin Scalia on this matter.
You do know that Cruz once argued for eminent domain and that Bush kicked a disabled Vet out of his home with eminent domain.
; Wow...Well at least you admit to supporting government tyranny. Not sure why you are here, though.
RE: It’s an indificual decision if one wants to sell or not, and is this really an issue or is it because you found another way to bash TrumP?
IT IS AN ISSUE regardless of who the Presidential candidate is.
As a conservative, I am very uncomfortable with government using its power of COERCION to take private property ( a right protected by our constitution ) to give to another private entity simply because it has more money.
Casinos are NOT a public necessity like highways or utilities.
Now let be ask you a question — why has it struck a nerve with you? Is it because BY DEFINITION, Trump can do no wrong?
RE: You do know that Cruz once argued for eminent domain
WHAT TYPE? HIGHWAYS? DEFENSE PURPOSES?
I’d like to know the details of the case. If it is for something like casino development, then I’ll take him to task on that.
Right? I was truly shocked to read that anyone on this forum could write that post. Maybe it was sarcasm?
I'm going to make a wild guess that you actually know that there are more candidates running for president than just Trump and Bush. If this is an attempt to make Trump and his power-grabbing tendencies look better, you're failing miserably.
Disclaimer: My post is meant for a freedom-loving conservative. If this doesn't describe you, please scroll on by.)
LOL!!
Love to read a post with analytical, significant, factual answers and not reverting to accusation, innuendo, non productive personal attacks!!
Congratulations!!
So what is your solution, when a city wants to rebuild a dilapidated and nearly abandoned section of town?
There will ALWAYS be one holdout that wont leave under any circumstances.
Should millions of people be denied the priviledge of living in a beautiful vibrant revitalized city because one stubborn fool wont leave their home that’s sitting right in the middle of the area to be developed?
I personally have no problem with it. And if the people of a city have an issue with it, they have the option to elect people that will prioritize the wants of the few over the wants of the many.
Seems he used all his vocabulary there.
Thanks, Mr. Scalia.
Pray for us.
As for the trolls...
Wasn’t it Bob Guccione who started the effort to take her house by “eminent domain”, followed up by the local government, trying to clean up the blighted district they were trying to rehabilitate?
Trump, if my memory is functioning, took over the failing property, offered the woman 5 million, a life time free rent in one of his luxury apartments in Florida, with other perks. She turned him down, and he went ahead and built around her. She kept her house.
Eventually, after becoming increasingly feeble, she went to assisted living, and her son sold the run-down rooming house for about 500 thousand.
But, what does the truth matter in an election season?
Please feel free to correct any of my errors, made from memory of researching for the facts of the case back in the day.
Damn - I’m not used to speaking off the cuff because I’m not the greatest businessman who ever lived who does need to ask for forgiveness because I’m so great and who is so great at creating great jobs and who is great at appointing judges to the bench and who is great at defending gun rights and the those of the unborn and of course, building the greatest wall known to man and passing the greatest bill on the Mexicans.
Wow. That’s great.
Cruz argued for the use of eminent domain to build the border wall next to Mexico. Trump supporters must think we're stupid and don't read the news. And then they have the gall to say the wall was Trump's idea.
Cruz was fighting for wall when Trump's biggest concern was his TV show on a liberal network.
heights,
Please accept my apology for the post in
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3397529/posts?page=49#49
It was not called for and I apologize. Asked the mods to remove, not sure if they will.
Take care.
SeekAndFind,
I should not have posted please disregard.
Posted an apology to heights for that post. Hope he is gracious enough to accept.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3397529/posts?page=49#49
It was not called for and I apologize. Asked the mods to remove, not sure if they will.
Take care.
Your summation sounds about right.
The land was never taken for Trump’s casino.
The woman held onto her asbestos ridden boarding home but changed her mind, selling it to someone else for a 1/4 of what Trump offered.
There are 3 ways to determine market value and the owner always winds up coming out ahead.
Ah, but did Scalia reject Bush-style eminent domain abuse?
___________________________________________________________
Based on his opinion he did, of course his opinion is the minority opinion the majority agreed with the crony cpaitalist Trump view, as well as the Bush’s
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.