The Damn Government Stole Our House!
That is what people will soon be saying in America as a 5-4 ruling by liberal judges on the Supreme Court made legally possible on June 23, 2005.
The American dream that so many strive to achieve is now threatened by this ruling establlishing that city governments can take away entire neighborhoods and replace them with new development to increase their tax base.
What this means
Developers who want a piece of property anywhere in America can now get it by going into city offices and proving that the city will be better off by kicking people out of their homes so the city can make more money with more taxes.
Who ever thought such a thing could ever happen in America?
The homeowners, represented by a public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, which has conducted a national litigation campaign against what it calls "eminent domain abuse," argued that taking property to enable private economic development - even development that would provide a public benefit by enhancing the tax base - could never be a "public use." In their view, the only transfers of property that qualified were those that gave actual ownership or use to the public, such as for a highway or a public utility.
But the majority of the justices concluded today that public use was properly defined more broadly as "public purpose." Justice Stevens noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment had allowed the use of eminent domain for the redevelopment of a blighted neighborhood in Washington, D.C.; for the redistribution of land ownership in Hawaii, and for assisting a gold-mining company, in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government," Justice Stevens said, adding: "Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."
In other words, he's saying that the public comes before the individual, and that goes against the Bill of Rights!
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."
She said, "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."
Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive use of her property?" Justice O'Connor asked.
She added: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
Both Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas, who also filed his own dissent, emphasized that the decision's burden would fall on the less powerful and wealthy. "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more," Justice O'Connor said. "The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
Justice Thomas, who called the decision "far-reaching and dangerous," cited several studies showing that those displaced by urban renewal and "slum clearance" over the years have tended to be lower-income members of minority groups. "The court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution," he said.
In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens said that "the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain power to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate." The court did not "minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail," he said, despite the fact that the homeowners will receive "just compensation."
What is the hell is "just compensation"? They don't define that!
This is a classic case of socialism run amok. Liberals want to socialize this nation by forcing everyone into cities by tearing down established neighborhoods to build apartment, condos and shopping malls. When that's not enough, they will build up and up making small towns to be like big cities where everyone is crammed-in so the government can have more control over the people, and do as they damn well please!
The people will eventually be left with no voice in matters that concern their lives. Remember, that's how socialism/communism/marxism gets started!
And that is what this law is all about, liberals creating a socialist government by non-elected liberal judges making laws from the bench instead of through legislation as established in the United States Constitution.
This USSC decision is a travesty and an outrage that the people of America must stand up and fight against in every town.
Scott G. Bullock, the lawyer who argued the case for the New London homeowners, said in an interview today that his organization, the Institute for Justice, would accept the court's invitation and "continue the fight in the state supreme courts." As a result of the decision, he said, "we are going to see more eminent domain abuse and a growing grass-roots rebellion against this type of government action."
Source: 1
posted by OTTMANN @ 10:36 PM
1 Comments:
Two problems I see right off the bat. One, "Stole" rather assumes something other than taking with just compensation (when was the last time a thief justly compensated you for something taken?). The fifth amendment, even as interpreted in this decision, requires compensation. One can certainly argue, as the previous commenter does, that just compensation should be the expected postdevelopmental value, not the depressed property value prior to development. With this argument I concur, although the commenter makes the same error by referring to the taking as a theft. Two, "Stole" rather implies illegal activity. Since it is the Supreme Court that determines what is and is not legal, permitting takings of private property with just compensation is not illegal.
While taking entire neighborhoods simply to increase the tax base may be the interpretation many place upon this decision, such an interpretation is rejected in the decision itself. To pass muster under this decision, a taking must be a part of a well thought out plan that has the raising of the overall economy of the neighborhood which should result in a material benefit to the population, not just the tax-base of the government. In short, it is not enough to show that the city will be better off, unless by 'the city' you mean the residents of the city.
The argument that placing the public over the individual goes against the bill of rights is also faulty. The traditional "public use" clause interpretation, namely, taking of privately held property to construct roads and highways etc. clearly placed the public over the private individual, depriving that individual of property for the use of all. Also it is faulty in that the individual's rights are maintained by the requirement of compensation. This is no socialist decision where "each according to his ability to each according to his need" would require no compensation whatsoever, since all property in a socialist state is considered to belong to the state (or to 'the people' as a whole) and may be redistributed in the manner that the state determines to be best.
As for how socialism/communism/marxism gets started, well, traditionally it gets started by violent revolution.
As for Liberals, I cannot speak for them all, obviously, but the liberal bloggers whom I have read are universally appalled by and against this decision--predictably so since they see it as pro-business and against the working man.
I myself find this to be a disturbing decision for many of the same reasons that everyone else is but, given the precedents cited by the majority, I don't see how the court could have decided otherwise without, in a blatantly activist manner, ignoring those precedents. There is a place, I suppose, in court decisions, for saying that previous court decisions have been heading in a dangerous direction and deciding that it is time to return to a more literal interpretation of "public use". Clearly the minority thinks so. In fact, so do I.
So, are we, the people, defenseless? Not necessarily. We can effect the future of takings by local governments by becoming more deeply involved in local government. We can make the "public use" issue a primary litmus test. Demand of each official a declaration that she will never invoke eminent domain, except for public "use", not the broader public "benefit". Better yet, demand that our elected officials, at the local level, enact legislation demanding that takings must meet the plainer and more original meaning of the word "use". Threaten them with replacement if they refuse. Actually replace them, via election or recall if, though they agree, they later renege on their promises.
Violence is not the way, in my opinion, although non-violent civil disobedience has proven useful in the past and is always an option available to fed-up citizens but whatever solution is sought, it will require numbers too large to ignore. That will require motivated political activists and you sound like you fit that bill to a tee. God-speed.
Post a Comment
<< Home