The Little Man

[TheAnalyst]

I'm actually surprised that the Supreme Court ruled this way. Yet another way for the government to control us. What's even more surprising is that those who claim to defend the little guy just handed the fat cats a nice gift.

Supreme Court Ruling

I do feel bad for those losing their houses. Could happen to any of us now.

[LionPride]

I'm glad you posted this Analyst. I was just going to do that myself.

If ever there was an issue that far left liberals and far right conservatives can come together on, it's this ruling. There can't be a true blooded American out there that thinks this ruling is a good idea. I guess I don't consider some lawyers true blooded Americans.

This is a prime example of a Judiciary branch out of control. I honestly have no clue which justices voted which way - it doesn't matter. The 5 that ruled for this have to be somewhat insane, and are doing their best to rewrite the Constitution. This is Socialism at it's finest.

With this ruling, any homeowner out there has to be fearful. I understand the need for eminent domain in the interest of public good (and public use). But to use eminent domain for private enterprise is bogus.

[Pale Rider]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but....this has been the case for as long as I can remember, with the caveat that if, say PennDot wants to put through a new highway, they MUST pay you FAIR MARKET VALUE for your property. They have tried several environmental twists to move people, such as saying the landowners water was polluted, there were outstanding leins against the owner, whatever legal BS they can come up with. Yakov Smirnov comedian used to say, "What a country!"

[LionPride]

Yes, the use of eminent domain has been in existence. Pretty sure it's the 5th amendment to the Constitution.

BUT, and here's the difference, that amendment is put in place for government to excercise if the land or home is in the way of something to be used for public use (such as roads). To my knowledge, it has never been used for PRIVATE enterprise. And that's the big kicker here. With this ruling, the courts are basically saying the government can claim your home or your land for just about ANY reason. That my friends is Socialism. And why do you think this ammendment was deemed necessary? It was to prevent government from coming in and taking your land for some other reason than the public good, which is what kings used to do all the time, and what the framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid.

Our judiciary branch is out of control. Several of us on here have been saying that for a long time. Maybe this ruling will open some eyes.

[fleaflicker]

I don't like the ruling either, as eminent domain is basically for public works and stuff that will directly benefit the public body as a whole. Admittedly, private enterprise does create jobs and such, but it doesn't directly benefit the entire public body, as is required by the Constitution.

However, here's the one thing we don't know about this ruling: What was the exact situation? In other words, had 95% of those affected already agreed to sell to the private enterprise and move elsewhere, and the court decision was basically ordering the few holdouts to get out, or did 95% of those affected NOT want to move, and the government was forcing everybody there to leave against their will? This would impact how I would view it, even though it is at least questionable in any situation. But so far, I think an unofficial survey found 97% of people to be against this ruling.

[El-Moldo]

Kind of reminds me of the movie "Deliverance". Remember, the power company was going to dam up the Cahulawassee River, so they bought up all the property in the area. Made everyone move. Even moved a cemetary which would have ended up under water. Anyhow, Burt Reynolds and friends decided to take one last canoe trip down the river. Meet a kid with a banjo, then 2 of them get molested, then they kill one of the molesters, then Reynolds breaks his leg going over a waterfall after one of his friends is shot. Then Jon Voight kills the guy who shot his friend. Then they finally make if down to Aintree where they are saved, sort of. Sorry if I ruined this movie for anyone who hasn't seen it. Sorry.

[LionPride]

[quote="fleaflicker";p="96660"]I don't like the ruling either, as eminent domain is basically for public works and stuff that will directly benefit the public body as a whole. Admittedly, private enterprise does create jobs and such, but it doesn't directly benefit the entire public body, as is required by the Constitution.

However, here's the one thing we don't know about this ruling: What was the exact situation? In other words, had 95% of those affected already agreed to sell to the private enterprise and move elsewhere, and the court decision was basically ordering the few holdouts to get out, or did 95% of those affected NOT want to move, and the government was forcing everybody there to leave against their will? This would impact how I would view it, even though it is at least questionable in any situation. But so far, I think an unofficial survey found 97% of people to be against this ruling.[/quote]

I don't know of percentages in this situation, but yes, the majority did fold and agree to sell instead of fighting a well funded big brother.

But that's not the issue. This isn't about a group of people trying to decide which ice cream stand to go to, it's about their homes that they've worked a lifetime to get the way they wanted. I may live in a neighborhood where 90% of my neighbors don't really care where they live, but I can tell you, I never want to leave my home or live anywhere else.

I can't believe that anyone wouldn't think this ruling is dangerous, and setting a very dangerous precendence. Anytime a local government decides they aren't getting enough in the tax coffers, and the local unemployment rate is high, they can recruit a private enterprise to come in and build a business. This is a good thing. But when that business says the only place they'll build is in "x" residential neighborhood, and those residents don't want to give up their homes, the local government can now claim eminent domain. And how often do you think those businesses are going to try to build in an affluent section? No, they will go after middle to lower class areas because those folks can't afford to fight it.

If you don't think this is a dangerous, then Socialism is for you. And it doesn't matter if it's 1 in a 100 or 99 in 100 that want to keep their homes - this is still wrong.

[Pale Rider]

Politics all start on the LOCAL level. We elect our representatives because we hope they will express our wishes and look out for us little guys. This doesn't always happen. However, it is possible to fight "City Hall", if you and your neighbors don't cave and present a united front. Prime example: I live along a rural road in Adams Twp., Cambria Co. A few neighbors with good intentions, came knocking on everyone's door about 28 years ago, seeking signatures on a petition for installation of fire hydrants along our road for of course, fire protection. It would benefit everyone. Almost all of the homes were at that time fed by wells or springs. I personally had my well redrilled so I had plenty of water. After the petition was submitted to the township supervisors, they in turn submitted it to the state, to try and get grants to install the water lines. The state, in turn, came back to the township, and said that in order for this grant to go through, it had to be made MANDATORY that everyone had to DISCONTINUE THEIR PRESENT SYSTEM AND PAY TO HOOK UP TO THE NEW LINE! The state argued that since this was right after the '77 Jtown flood, ALL wells and springs were POLLUTED and should be discontinued. This mandatory crap didn't sit well with the residents. We all sat in on many Twp. meetings and expressed our negativity about the matter. My grandfather for one, had a dairy farm that had a bacteria monitor on a monthly basis. If his spring/ cistern water had been polluted, he would have been shut down. It wasn't and he wasn't. Eventually they gave up on the MANDATORY clause, and found other money to push through the water line anyway, which we all took advantage of hooking up to it. In the long run, all benefitted, but it was the way they went about it initially which was WRONG! Local governments aren't infallible, and neither are State and Federal. It's time they woke up and realized this country is still OF, BY, and FOR the people.

[fleaflicker]

Well, since it was for commercial purposes, perhaps the business was paying them a significant amount more than the property was worth, and the people in question wanted to sell it, because they'd make lots of money. I'm not totally sure whether I would agree with taking the home or not if 1 in 100 were holding out on the sell, but what I am saying is that it is a totally different situation than if only 1 in 100 were willing to sell.

[LionPride]

Once again, the man of common sense explains it how it is. Especially the last line of his article.

Property rites
Thomas Sowell (archive)

June 27, 2005

You may own your own home and expect to live there the rest of your life. But keep your bags packed, because the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that local politicians can take your property away and turn it over to someone else, just by using the magic words "public purpose."

We're not talking about the government taking your home in order to build a reservoir or a highway for the benefit of the public. The Constitution always allowed the government to take private property for "public use," provided the property owner was paid "just compensation."

What the latest Supreme Court decision does with verbal sleight-of-hand is change the Constitution's requirement of "public use" to a more expansive power to confiscate private property for whatever is called "public purpose" -- including turning that property over to some other private party.

In this case -- Kelo v. New London -- the private parties to whom the government would turn over confiscated properties include a hotel, restaurants, shops, and a pharmaceutical company.

These are not public uses, as the Constitution requires, but are said to serve "public purposes," as courts have expanded the concept beyond the language of the 5th Amendment -- reflecting those "evolving" circumstances so dear to judges who rewrite the Constitution to suit their own tastes.

No sane person has ever denied that circumstances change or that laws need to change to meet new circumstances. But that is wholly different from saying that judges are the ones to decide which laws need changing and in what way at what time.

What are legislatures for except to legislate? What is the separation of powers for except to keep legislative, executive and judicial powers separate?

When the 5 to 4 Supreme Court majority "rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" because of the "evolving needs of society," it violated the Constitutional separation of powers on which the American system of government is based.

When the Supreme Court majority referred to its "deference to legislative judgments" about the taking of property, it was as disingenuous as it was inconsistent. If Constitutional rights of individuals are to be waved aside because of "deference" to another branch of government, then the citizens may as well not have Constitutional rights.

What are these rights supposed to protect the citizens from, if not the government?

This very Court, just days before, showed no such deference to a state's law permitting the execution of murderers who were not yet 18. Such selective "deference" amounts to judicial policy-making rather than the carrying out of the law.

Surely the Justices must know that politicians whose whole careers have been built on their ability to spin words can always come up with some words that will claim that there is what they can call a "public purpose" in what they are doing.

How many private homeowners can afford to litigate such claims all the way up and down the judicial food chain? Apartment dwellers who are thrown out on the street by the bulldozers are even less able to defend themselves with litigation.

The best that can be said for the Supreme Court majority's opinion is that it follows -- and extends -- certain judicial precedents. But, as Justice Clarence Thomas said in dissent, these "misguided lines of precedent" need to be reconsidered, so as to "return to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause" in the Constitution.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent points out that the five Justices in the majority -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy -- "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property." As a result, she adds: "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."

In other words, politicians can replace your home with whatever they expect will pay more taxes than you do -- and call their money grab a "public purpose."