If You Build It, He Will Cry
The USSC has some real boneheads on it. I posted earlier about the recent ten commandments rulings, but before those were handed down, the supremes ruled that a state government could proceed with condemnation proceedings against one private owner and hand that property over to a private developer to build condos. This flies in the face of one of the greatest rights we have in this country - the right to own property.
As some background, the U.S. Constitution permits governments to take property under eminent domain (5th Amendment), but it must be for public use, and the government must compensate the owner justly...that is, reasonable market value.
This new ruling, a 5-4 decision, allows for the first time the opportunity of the government to take property from one private citizen and give it to another private citizen. How can this be public use, you ask? Well, the Men in Black (the 9 on the bench), have declared that where the local economy will make more in taxes and revenue from the new developments than the local government makes from property taxes by the current owner, then that is a sufficient public use.
It is a travesty of the highest order. But, soon we may have a reconsideration of the ruling. Justice Souter is a member of the liberal bloc on the court, and accordingly he voted to abort the rights of the landowners. Mr. Souter, however, has a bit of property in New Hampshire where one industrious developer is hoping to commence condemnation hearings upon said property to build his "Lost Liberty Hotel." If the local government should exercise their new, expanded right of eminent domain, Mr. Souter would have to just sit back and take it. As my brother put it, he will have to live with his decision. We can all hope that this gentleman in New Hampshire is successful because until a Supreme gets brought down to Earth, we will have to endure further encroachments upon our rights.
If you want to read the article about the New Hampshire developer, go to this site:
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Aufwienerschnitzel,
Matthew
posted by Matthew Simcox at 8:56 AM
1 Comments:
Well-written article, Matthew. If I understood one of the commentators on the Brit Hume Show on FOX, the USSC basically changed the meaning of the Constitution from "public use" to "public purpose". Do you know if that is correct?
I believe that this ruling strikes at the very heart of democracy for several reasons: (1.) our Founders believed strongly in Locke's basic human rights of life, liberty, and property-- the last being a term that Jefferson had originally used in the Declaration of Independence. He later changed it to "pursuit of happiness" in order to broaden the appeal of the Declaration because not all owned property-- but hoped to one day! (2.) The framers of the Constitution made sure to include in that document that any legal contracts entered into by any party under the Articles of Confederation be they the "United" States, the states individually, or individuals within a state were to be recognized as legal under the new constitution-- this especially included debts that had accrued, land that had been purchased, etc.
I really have enjoyed your articles.
Post a Comment
<< Home