castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

June 23, 2005 4:11 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "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."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to continue their fight. 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.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for 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.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices 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.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

---

Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo in New London, Conn. and Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn. contributed to this report.

---

On the Net:

The ruling in Kelo v. New London is available at:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

[JuntaJoe]

I'm pissed as hell at this ruling!

The liberal justices got a crossover vote to give cities more power over homeowners.

Emminent domain should not be used to let business steal homes.

It should be for public works projects only!


And there is more anti-Constitutional crap coming out of Washington too. The Senate is now pondering a flag burning ammendment! Free speech is at risk now.

Damn Republicans and Democrats are colluding these days to steal the rights of the individual and give it to government and businesses.

We so badly need the Libertarian party to rise up.


Don't get me wrong, I hate flag burning. I reserve the personal right to pound your teeth in for doing it and getting arrested for assault. Don't do it in front of me without having a dental appointment set in advance. But it is a form of political speech. If the Constitution granted free speech protection then it was certainly for political speech if nothing else. I fought and knew those who died for that right!

This is a very bad week for American rights. :evil:

[Georgie]

Yes, there is little difference between the two parties. A good option is that third party. But you need a leader. It cannot be an average Joe Blow from nowhereland who never had any administrative experience. Not only that, but he must also be presentable to the public and a good speaker in the day of constant media attention and slander.
When a viable third party to comes to life and threatens the two-party system, both the Democrates and Republicans will certainly jump and try to snuff the life out of their competitor.

But the third parties that exist now are so small and hopless that they cause no harm at all and threaten no one.

[JuntaJoe]

Both the Greens and Libertarian parties have been making gains in regional elections.

[FrankyG888]

I agree with Joe. The Libertarians are in fact on the rise. The Greens on the other had have actually lost power. There are actually two Green Parties in this country. And both have lost support both locally and federally.

Another party that is on the rise is the Constitution Party which has become extremely popular in the western states of Idaho, Montana ect... In state and local elections the Constitution Party is consistently beating the Republicans. The message here is that the voters in these states are sick and tired of Republicans lack of fiscal conservation and the Democrats liberal social platform. This could mean a severely undermined Republican party in the west similar to what happened in the 50's, 60's and 70's to the Democrats in the South.

I believe that the Republican Party is actually on the decline, not on the rise as most politicians theorize. I believe this because federal political trends are often seen first in the State and Local elections and the Republicans are losing the races or have been severely undermined by the third parties.

Don't be surprised if the "Safe West” start going to the Strom Thurmond’s of the Constitution party in 2016 and on.

[FrankyG888]

Earlier this year I did a little research for a business law class on the controversy surrounding the debate over the Georgia State Flag.

The "old" flag that had been flying over the state for nearly 50 years came under attack for displaying the battle flag of the Confederacy. The Attackers claimed that the flag was racially insensitive. At first I agreed with them that the flag was racist and that the confederate battle flag should be removed, but the more research I did the more I began to side with the supporters of the flag. In fact by the time I turned in the project I was down right furious with the opposition group.

Not only was the new flag ugly (it was named North Americas worst flag including cities by the North American Vexillogical Association) it kept the Confederate Battle flag. All this did was anger both sides of the debate.

But why my anger? Because during the research I was able to find multiple polls showing that the average Georgian and southerner don't see the flag as a racist symbol, but as a symbol of their heritage and their independent sprit. It truly is unfortunate that most Northerners like me can't seem to see that the flag is not a symbol of hate but a symbol of heritage.

My Grandparents used to live in Georgia and on a trip to Savannah we saw Confederate flags flying throughout the city. The flags weren't just flown but whites, but by African Americans and Hispanics. All of the Savannahians (?) had a pride in there state and their region. I believe that this sprit was immortalized in a bumper sticker that I saw which I will always remember: "Heritage not Hate, Pride not Prejudice."

I realize you must all be wondering why I posted this in this topic; well it is because this is a perfect example of the Government interfering where it doesn't have to. Just another example of the medaling government screwing up by getting to involved in a non-issue and making it the most important issue in the State. (The first Republican governor since reconstruction was elected in the state when he promised to return the flag. He is yet to do so.)

[JuntaJoe]

I noted your lack of Democratic doodads in your sig/avatar areas.

Perhaps Franky going Libertarian on me?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you have.

You seem to be warming to those views of late.

You see the corporate welfare state of the Republicans and the social welfare state of the Democrats and little result from either while money goes down the tubes.

You see the Republican dogma push too much "morality" on civil rights and you see the Democrats willing to protect any insane offbeat view to protect "diversity and tolerance". Isn't it funny how the Democrats managed to turn those two perfect fine basic concepts into curse words amongst the masses?

At some point you begin to think "I wish they would stay out of my wallet and my head".

Dammit, I could care less if you formed a Civil Union with your milking cow. Just don't ask me to fund it through my taxes. :roll:

[FrankyG888]

I have been heading towards the Libertarian Party. Of course, I am still a bit worried about the fringe groups involved in the Party.

[JuntaJoe]

Face it, your average fringe type will always be drawn to a party that espouses self reliance and reduced government authority.

It just comes with the package.

Kind of like saying you will not support a law against flag burning no matter how repugnant you find flag burners to be. The flag burner types then are attracted to you no matter how much you wish them to not get anywhere near you.

Standing on principle is rarely fun polite entertainment.

But hey, if you get elected president as a Libertarian then maybe you can have a few of the worst sort "disappeared" for fun. :wink:


But the best thing about choosing Libertarian over Democrat, Franky, is that you only have to accept the existance of these fringe types instead of funding and passing laws to protect and advance the fringe types.

A Libertarian says "Fine! Now go do it out of my sight!"

A Democrat says "Oh the misguided and unfairly abused soul! We need 40 billion for supporting and advancing your way of life and getting you free treatment. And have that other man arrested for saying something rude about them."

A Republican says "What an unholy monster! We must find a way to stamp it out! If the government won't arrest him then I'm having my cousin Elroy the preacherman shoot him from that grassy knoll yonder. And then we'll burn any reference about that man out of every book we find. Perhaps if we gave 40 billion to that startup security firm my uncle Cletus is opening then things like this will never happen again!"


Geez, I must be getting more Libertarian too. Writing all that hyperbole was taxing on my mind. That's another sweet facet of Libertarianism, much less required hyperbole. 8)

[Georgie]

Folks, have you noticed that no one seems to be talking about the Supreme Court ruling anymore? It seems that the big media (NYT, telivision--though I don't watch it, and big,"reputable" nwsps) is trying to hush something up, get a precedent passed, and keep it off the news.

Now if the Supreme Court had tried this a decade or so back, there would have been such a big outcry that even the New York Times would not be able to keep quiet.

[JuntaJoe]

I don't see a plot brewing. I see an odd sort of lethargy instead.

After the Florida decision, liberals were fearful that they had no influence. Then the various appeals courts handed down liberal rulings and the Supreme Court got crossover votes and passed a few other liberal rulings in the face of expected all-conservative pronouncements. At the same time, the conservatives are befuddled that their Supreme Court which has a conservative majority keeps passing out less than conservative rulings.

So no one is sure what comes next. You'd think this would cause a furor, and it did for a while. But in our over analyzed news marketplace, it is stability that gives a rallying point for political philosophies. Something to keep hammering at. But we simply can't pin the court down. In the age of instant news gratification, we are forced to keep readjusting our opinion of the court. The American mindset is not geared to constant readjustment and simply walks away. Conservatives like the status quo as it's part of the philosophy. Liberals supposedly want change, but they keep asking for the same things over repeatedly and have drifted into rut of their own. Both sides want their own comfortable path. The court isn't giving it to either of them and the multitudes can't use their comfortable rallying cries against the perceived actions of the other side. So they merely wander off to other areas where they can use their comfortable slogans.

[Georgie]

It's not a matter of plots or conspiracy theories.

In another day, no one would put up with such a outrageous ruling. People would be out demanding that it be repealed or something to that effect.

If you say that folks are just lithargic, then, one must ask why. This should not be treated as a passing, trifling matter to glance at, yawn, put aside,and shake one's head. If so, then we deserve to lose what we have. However, I do not want my liberties and property taken away from me.

It trickles down. More and more will be taken away... One day, if this keeps up, we shall find ourselves with very little.

[JuntaJoe]

Update on the original topic.

Texas just passed a law against using emminent domain for economic gain.

[Georgie]

Well, that's good for your state, but what about the rest of us? Maybe we should all move to Texas. Organize a mass exodus of conservatives out of certain states and hide out in Texas.

Texas seems to have a larger than usual population of thinking folks.

[Eddy]

I would like to see more third parties (even the Constitution Party who are repugnant to me) simply because the Republicrats and the Demicans are too similar anymore. Let's face it, the last two elections were close not so much because of fraud and ballot stealing, but because the parties are so similar. A large number of people aren't voting for a candidate, but against the other. That's what killed Kerry. He wasn't approachable like Bush is and he paid for it.

[JuntaJoe]

Georgie wrote: Well, that's good for your state, but what about the rest of us? Maybe we should all move to Texas. Organize a mass exodus of conservatives out of certain states and hide out in Texas.

Could we hold off on the mass exodus thing for a while?

We just received 250,000 new immigrants in the past week. :?



As for individual states, I recommend activism if you don't like what you see.

Trust me, anyone is capaple of holding a placard.

[Georgie]

JuntaJoe wrote: As for individual states, I recommend activism if you don't like what you see.

Trust me, anyone is capaple of holding a placard. Actually, I think that there are better ways of doing it. Yes, it is good to fight insanity on the small scale and wherever you may find it. But a lone wolf does not go very far. Yes, outside the game, I am indeed a lean, lone wolf.

[CooJoe]

Georgie wrote: Yes, outside the game, I am indeed a lean, lone wolf.

Better than being a morbidly obese wolf, that can barley move. :wink:

One person can have a rippling effect.

Look at people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther. All of them individuals who have started a ripple, which turned to something great.

[Georgie]

....and also Napoleon. They are what we call leaders. They know how to lead; they know how to go about it.
A leader must stir the people, organize and unite them so that there is a large mass of like-minded folks who stand for a specific, defined goal. A leader must be a bit courageous and willing to take much flack from all sides without breaking down and sulking away. But that is not the most important point.

Before Luther, there were a lot of unhappy Catholics who wanted certain changes, but were not able. They had no one to look up to and follow. They kept their severe differences to themselves, but that did not mean that they would like to see certain changes. Luther came along. He had stature; he had clout; and he had principles. When he spoke before trial, he showed courage and fearlessness that awed the European World. People knew that he was serious.

On top of that he was not foolish as to let himself be taken, double-crossed and eliminated.




I agree with Eddy in that the two established parties are almost one and the same. There is hardly anything to differentiate them anymore, besides cosmetic work. Either way you vote, you still get the same people, have the same problems, and the same thing.

[JuntaJoe]

This thread has been edited.

It diverged into illegal immigration for which we already have a thread for.

This thread is about individual rights.