SCOTUS: Cities may seize homes at will... Kelo v. New London (merged)

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted "public use" to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a "public purpose" such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Ever notice how much the guys up above like to "interpret" things? :mad:
 
...I have not had the opportunity to research and study all case law, especially that which took place in 1803....So you can either crusify me or welcome me to the fold.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the fold!

I didn't bring it up to crucify anyone, though I wouldn't mind seein Breyer and cohorts nailed to a train track. It was just a reminder, probably unnecessary but hey, I got to say it anyway, that SCOTUS has assaulted the Republic practically from its inception with this sort of nasty bench legislation. These lifers are literally a menace to society.
 
Any way to repost what eghad said, and get it stickied to the top of legal and political? I feel that we all need to do all we can, but too many of us do not know how to begin. I guess we could use something like a permanent political action FAQ.
 
Kelo v. New London

With this decision, the Court has permanently equated USE = PURPOSE, on nothing more than the flimsiest of grounds.

Justice Stevens said:
"...the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts."
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

When the government of the United States exceeds its legitimate enumerated powers, the courts have the authority, indeed the duty, to declare that exercise of power unconstitutional. On the one hand, progressive's tend to reject the notion that the courts have a role in protecting property rights. After all, property should be held in common for the common good and you are not a property owner, just its caretaker. While on the other hand, conservatives call for Judicial Restraint. Let congress do what it must and trust the "democratic" process to quell misuse. Thus effectively achieving the same goal as the progressive's: Bigger and more powerful government at the expense of basic Liberties.

Was the results of this decision unexpected? Only to those that thought the Congress, the President or the Courts respected individual liberties. They do not. What they respect is money... And the corporations that make that money. We are not talking about small business here. We are speaking of large nearly monolithic entities that have the time, the resources and the money to peddle their influence to whatever political source they can, that will ally themselves with the corporation.

This decision not only guts what's left of private property rights, but also legitimizes governmental corruption down to the level of your local city council, your unelected zoning commission and your city or county planning commission.

While I generally agree with Thomas, even he gets it wrong when dealing with the reality of eminent domain. It has been my experience and that of many others that "Fair Market Price" is almost never offered. Generally the land is first condemned. This has the immediate effect of making market price literally pennies on the dollar. That is what is offered to "buy you out." This land is then turned around and sold, again for pennies on that dollar, to the developer.

In view of the reality, eminent domain should never occur. The founders blew this one.

Eminent Domain has only one real use in a Free Society: To provide for public roads and in some cases, public buildings.

As Commerce was redefined to equal economics in Gonzales v. Raich, so another constitutional term has been redefined. Public use is now equal to Public Purpose.

I was going to write yet another dispassionate and scholarly essay. But the more I thought about this, the more enraged I became. Two cases, published within 20 days of one another have completely gutted the very reasons for the existence of this country. This didn't happen overnight, to be sure. Precedent upon precedent was added. The slippery slope has been achieved.

In Raich, the commerce clause power of the Federal Government has been broadened so far that it is doubtful that there is any limit to it at all. But while this issue is meaningful to some few of us, for most Americans, it means little or nothing. Eyes glaze over at the mention of such esoteric thoughts.

But Kelo... Now here's a decision that will strike at the gut of the Average American. This is something that everyone will understand. We live our lives, safe in the thought that we can own our property. Our House. The American Dream... Now to be confronted by the possibility that some wealthy developer can come along and convince (a little contribution to their campaign fund?) your city council or county commissioners that for a "fair" price, they will build a strip mall and the city will get back 10 times the revenue in property taxes and sales taxes that they would not get by letting the little people own their homes.

Of what use is the academic essay? To sit back in their lofty chairs and mumble to each other about how bad it could get? Sorry. It's already Bad. Really, really bad.

This is not a taking. It is out and out theft, legally condoned by those Black Robes who sit on a bench in D.C., unelected, unaccountable to anyone, for life.

When the Joe and Jane Sixpacks of America get thrown out on their ear, by some wealthy developer... How many will stand humbly by and bend over?

Do these idiots in Washington not know what they have done? This is the firestorm issue.
 
Sir William,
Fair market compensation was proferred and denied.
Click to expand...
let me see if i follow your logic correctly:

someone offers me 'fair market price' for my vehicle, to which i relpy 'it is not for sale.' after they steal it, it is my fault for not accepting the offer of 'fair market price'?

or ...

when i waive my right to just compensation, i also waive my right to private property.

is this what you are saying?
 
City Seizure

Thought paralell to this new ruling by SCOTUS, Long ago the Mexican army lent a cannon to the town of Gonzales now in Texas. After the revolution of Texas from Mexico they showed up and wanted it back.

"Come and get it" was the answer from the men of Gonzales and after sending a cannon ball toward the Mexican Army, the latter lost interest in said cannon.

I feel the same way about my real estate and home as the Texians did about the cannon! Come and get it if you dare!
 
No. Under the particular state laws as enacted, the SCOTUS ruled that the law is the law. In one way, the SCOTUS strengthened states rights. What we all need to research is our own state laws and know whether the same can be done to us and our property. The states often can seize property without due process. There have even been bounties offered by California for older cars to be crushed. Reduces pollution for the common good. The entire EPA is based on laws passed for the common good. My thought is that we are losing in incremental stages. Catalytic converters, no smoking in bars and eateries, 4473s, seat belt laws, registration of private property for taxation, excise, fuel, sales, inheritance and luxury taxes and DUI checkpoints along with property seizures/forfeiture due to suspected drug activity. We have been losing for decades. As to your automobile, I suspect that if you research your state laws, you will discover that it can be seized.
 
Unfortunately, in this case the SCOTUS strengthened states' rights by ignoring an explicitly enumerated right which applies to the states by incorporation under the 14th amendment.

The Court has clearly gone off the reservation. They didn't justify their decision by saying the takings clause shouldn't be incorporated under the 14th, and there's no other remotely valid justification for what they just did. The majority explicitly acknowledges, in footnote 1 of Kelo, that the takings clause was incorporated under the 14th amendment in 1897.

The only argument I've seen made by anyone anywhere in support of the majority decision is that it's a local problem if the local government is taking property it shouldn't. That argument was made by someone on Democratic Underground. Sir William, your argument is roughly the same. Unfortunately, as pointed out above, it doesn't hold water.
 
if .gov seizes your house, make nice with the city councils where the offending CEOs and senators/congressmen/SCOTUS judges live, and have them suddenly decide that we need a new park, where their property used to be.

I'll bet if Justice Stevens' house was seized one day, he'd change his tune...
 
The overall picture must be viewed. Emotions need to be set aside. It is NOT a local issue. We need to fight the battle state by state though. In my opinion, SCOTUS should have simply not considered the case and returned it back to the state. Connecticut has laws that allow municipalities to seize property for the common economic good. The people of Connecticut should change their own laws. The SCOTUS only empowered Connecticut state laws, thereby I make the states rights are strengthened argument. We need to research and disseminate information in our own states to prevent our own properties from being seized/forfeited to the state. My family has fought the central government in the form of the NRA, TVA, water conservation districts and wetlands battles. Sometimes you win a battle and lose the war. It all comes down to money and how much determination a family has. The war is going to be fought state by state. We have 49 more chances. Hawaii should be interesting.
 
Maybe you need to read footnote 1 of Kelo. Incorporation of a right means it applies to state and local governments, not merely to state governments.

It's questionable whether the 14th amendment is even necessary for the BoR to apply to the states.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment (Second Amendment) may be appealed to as a restraint on both. -- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 125-26 (2d ed. 1829)
Click to expand...

Antipitas, I think Thomas's view of eminent domain works fine. Land can be claimed for public (government) use, if that use is authorized by some other portion of the constitution. The government can claim land (after fairly compensating the owner) to support the navy, or the post office, etc.
 
Sir William, i think i understand your perspective now, let me try again:

state/local legislatures pass laws in violation of the BoR, in this case the 5th amendment. they do this using the 10th amendment as justification.

SCOTUS, in this case, could have ruled against the state/local legislature, giving the BoR order of precedence.

instead they ruled for the state/local laws, thereby saying state/local laws may undermine the BoR, ironically, via the 10th amendment.

can't blame the developers for following the law, now can we!

am i closer?
 
10 ring! I am as disgruntled as anyone but, the power and the blame ultimately is only in the individual state laws. My personal disgust is that the case ever became more than a New London issue. Connecticut state law gave the municipality the legal power. The people must start the changes to assure this doesn't happen again. How do you change the law on the books? Research and write a bill, find a sponsor and hope for co-sponsors and wheedle it through the system and hearings and bring it to the floor. This will be a long war. Noone even seems to care that individual farmers cannot sue the central government for not adhering to contractual agreements in water conservation districts. Individual rights are vanishing.
 
Property theft begins thanks to traitors on the court

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3239024


Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina
By THAYER EVANS
Chronicle Correspondent

FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.

Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.

"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.

Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.

"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."

Since September 2003, the city has been locked in a legal battle to acquire a 300-by-60-foot tract of land along the Old Brazos River near the Pine Street bridge as well as a 200-foot tract and 100-foot tract along the river through eminent domain from Western Seafood Co. and Trico Seafood Co.

Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use upon payment of the fair market value.

The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.

Freeport Marina would then invest $1 million in the project and contribute a 1,100-foot tract of land, valued at $750,000, to it before receiving the loan.

Western Seafood spokesman Wright Gore III said the wholesale shrimp company was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision, but believes the ruling does not apply to the city's eminent domain proceedings.

He said there is a provision in state law that allows residents of a city to a circulate a petition to call a vote on whether the city can take property using eminent domain.

"(This) is far, far from over," Gore said. "(We) would have liked to have seen a victory on the federal level, but it is by no means a settled issue."

Gore said Western Seafood's 30,000-square-foot processing facility, which sits on the 300-by-60-foot tract, would be forced to close if the land were seized.

That facility earns about $40 million annually, and Western Seafood has been in business in Freeport since 1946, he said.

City officials, however, have said the marina will still allow Western Seafood and Trico Seafood, which did not return telephone calls or e-mail Thursday, to operate their facilities.

In August, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent ruled against a lawsuit filed by Western Seafood seeking to stop the city's eminent domain proceedings. The seafood company then appealed its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a request that initially was denied.

The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.
Click to expand...
 
[rant]

City Govts still have to answer to the voters..... if they think this is a bad thing then the voters in the area need to oust the officials responsible and then the new elected officials need to dump the bureaucrats who did it...

If the voters do that...then they have reminded those in power who rules the roost....

sadly we here in America have abdicated more and more power to those inside the beltway in DC. We are stuck like chuck with two politcal parties who are marketing slicksters and tell us what we should think. When we as voters wake up bring the big stick out and send all the bums inside the beltway packing....then things will change.

Or if millions of people showed up with picket signs and governemnt officials got so many calls and e-mails that it took the system down... you would see some mad action in Congress.

but then again its not our problem......till we as American as an entire nation wake up and reject the pablum that the politicians of both sides spoonfeed us it aint gonna change....

making a decison as to what party to vote for in todays politics is analagous to deciding which limb you need to amputate to save the person. it aint gonna be pretty either way.

so we can wail at the pols all we want and blame them. However, in the end the responsibility lies with us as citizens...

[/end rant]
 
The City of Portland has plans to move on certain businesses in the Pearl District that don't pay enough taxes to make way for companies that pay more taxes.. :barf:
 
Sir William, your position is that it doesn't matter whether the BoR is enforced against the states, because any abuses should be fixed at the state level? Welcome to 1850.

If you allow the courts to ignore the federal constitution's 14th amendment today, what's keeping them from ignoring your state's constitutional guarantees of rights tomorrow?

Yes, people should get involved at local and state levels, but that doesn't excuse or mitigate what the SCOTUS just did.
 
What then?

After all this talk what is to be done?
Here is an idea...
Who wants to form a constitutionalist revolutionary group, march on the beltway, toss the money grubbin politicians out on the road, and replace them with people who will represent those who put them in office. You know the guys who won't tell you what you want to hear to get elected then start taking kick backs from the oil lobby, pharmacutical people, and anyone else with the money to pay for a representative. Sell us down the river, take our rights, and freedoms, and be allowed to continue to violate the constitution of the US.
Tell you what, the list starts here. Put your name bellow.
none
none
none
none
none
none
none

and this is pretty much how it will go.
It is the same mentality as Walmart. Tell people that 1/2 of every dollar they spend there goes to China. A military rule form of government that uses that money to point ICBM's right back over here, and they will say "oh how terrible", and in the end, next Saturday they are going to load up the grocery go getter, and pack the family down to Wally World, and buy up some more of those nukes to bring back back home, and never give it another thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top