Posted on 06/23/2005 7:30:08 AM PDT by Helmholtz
U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.
A simpler solution would be for the US Congress to pass a law that stated that the eminent domain power shall not be used to confiscate private dwellings, that federal constitutional rights are violated if it is so used.
This would provide a uniform national law that private homes are the private domain of families, and are not subject to takings, except perhaps for cases of national defense.
Then the thing that has most Americans worried would be eliminated, and the possibility for abuse by local government would be eliminated.
Excuse me? What exactly do you think this case was about? New London, Connecticut wanted to tear down an established working class neighborhood to build a hotel and offices. The home owners sued, and took the case all the way to the US Supreme Court. The homeowners have now lost their case.
Are you telling those homeowmers, who bought homes in established residential areas, they they face zero risk of losing their homes? If so, then you are very, very wrong.
Really?
Whatever happened to Jefferson's declaration for Americans about the "pursuit of life, liberty and property?"
You are a really thoughtfull guy.
But the UK and Benelux pay disproportionate amount of taxes to fund ag subsidies and project in Spain and greece. That is why Blair (no conservative) and Chirac blew up at each other over the UKs 'rebate'.
In addition to ag subsidies france.
Today's ruling is one more example of the terrible paradox that America is a great country with terrible laws and a terrible legal system. US Americans would be better off with French law than with their own random and reckless judicial regime.
Other than the flowery language, I don't see how this is different from the US description. Both proclaim private property, except when the government needs it and pays fully for it.
The problem is that liberal judges have eviscerated the plain meaning. The government gets it if it wants it for whatever reason it wants to use, and pays what it wishes.
Considering the French scandals with money from Saddam and other troubles, I'm sure that your politicians know their way around the flowery language you quoted. It's probably easier for them, as the French have a wider view of what's a valid government purpose than does much of the US.
I didn't read the majority opinion yet. I have to bill some time today. But if a legitimate public purpose with a public benefit is involved, as found by a court, then yes, the power of condemnation should attend. This picking and choosing between public purposes doesn't do much for me. I described those public benefits that could attend this case. I think they are substantial, or could be.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.
O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."
"I am just so pleased to know that what we did was right," he said. "We can go ahead with development now."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.(The 3 conservatives with on again/off again O'Conner were opposed to government power of private property rights.)
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub.
More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. Last month, the Pentagon also announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, which would eliminate thousands of jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with "just compensation," is unconstitutional.(Thomas is an originalist/strict constructionist....we need more like him.)
Then you would vote with the liberals on the SCOTUS.
There is no reason to give my property to another private individual or corporation.
It is theft.
Bridge, roadway, military base, and the like, and I will entertain that being a public use. But a mall, highrises, and an amusement park is not a public USE.
Nice idea. Gives a person warm, fuzzy feelings of contentedness. What they actually did was a compromise that worked up until now, apparently. We will discover that it was there all along and that Goedel was right [which Einstein knew but wisely clammed up about].
You seem to be a very go along to get along type. In the above, you crouch to lick the hand that feeds you and accept that "public use" is a nullity. Do you think that language was a nullity when it was drafted?
You have public corporations going on in there. What degree of public do we need?
Can congress write a law that over rides the SCOTUS decision?
I hate to break this to you, but that is EXACTLY the case at issue here.
If, on the other hand, the Government forces you to sell directly to the private developer because the developer has a plan for its own benefit, then there is no public trust created and thus I do not believe that there is any way to say that the taking is for a "public use."
I have to agree that this is not constitutional. I had thought this was just another economic development plan implemetation, but it isn't. I would join the dissent in this one.
This is a blatant violation of our Civil Rights by the very people that were supposed to be our next to last appeal for government to shape up and fly right.
Correct.
"Other than the flowery language, I don't see how this is different from the US description. Both proclaim private property, except when the government needs it and pays fully for it.
The problem is that liberal judges have eviscerated the plain meaning. The government gets it if it wants it for whatever reason it wants to use, and pays what it wishes."
But, see, that IS the difference.
The language says what it says, in either the US or French version.
But in the US, a court says what the language means, and can make the law what the court wishes it to be. And the court is not answerable to anybody.
In France, the law is law because Parliament says it. No court can overrule Parliament or change any law. So the law says what it plainly says, and that is what the law is. Only Parliament can change the meaning of that law, because only Parliament has the power to make law. Courts do not have the power to do that.
Since the taking of private homes for somebody else's private purpose would infuriate the French (just as it clearly infuriates Americans, and for the same reasons), Parliament dares not ever attempt to pass a law that would say what the Supreme Court said today. They would be voted out and the new Parliament would change the law.
The difference is not in the words of the law, but in their source, and in the final authority that makes the law.
In France, it is Parliament, and courts cannot change any law, nor strike any law down. Elected officials make all laws. It is a criminal offense for a french judge to cite judicial precedent in a legal decision. Court decisions are not law precedent. The settle the case before them, and nothing else.
In the US, it is the Supreme Court that takes language that is similar, but then says that it does not mean what it says. Courts in France cannot do that, and do not try.
In the US, Courts make the law.
In France, Parliament does.
The language is the same, yes.
The difference is that in France nobody can take my house to build a store. In America, somebody can. Same words, different outcome, because of the power of the institutions with the final authority to make law.
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.