Supreme Court Expands Eminent Domain
From FoxNews:
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including ” but by no means limited to ” new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
“It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area,” he said.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
“It’s a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,” said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. “I won’t be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: “A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result.”
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for “public use.”…
So if Private Party A wants to put something where Private Party B has something else, whichever one will pay more taxes to the government has the right to that property. That’s how eminent domain now works. Eminent domain no longer means roads, school, governmental buildings, etc. It now means Best Buy headquarters, apartment buildings, private health clubs, and whatever the person with more money wants. I cringe thinking about what Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and the others who formed this great country would think of this ruling.
June 23, 2005 - 01:56 PM on June 23rd, 2005
you see what happens when you willingly fork over half of your paycheck to the government? They start to think they are entitled to it..and this is what you get.
Everytime I see some jackoff on TV saying, “I don’t mind paying a little more in taxes, if it will help someone”
I want to crawl into the TV and punch the doofus right in the sternum.
June 23, 2005 - 02:04 PM on June 23rd, 2005
These 5 justices should be impeached and removed from the bench or shot. There isn’t a one of them that reads the Constitution. I’d classify them all as enemy combatants.
June 23, 2005 - 02:08 PM on June 23rd, 2005
Just wait… soon, someone will say ‘that church over there doesn’t provide any tax revenue, but my roller-derby would. I want their land!’
It could happen!
June 23, 2005 - 02:15 PM on June 23rd, 2005
Another outragios ruling by our imperial court what a bunch od usless idiots we should repeale enimate domane as unconstitutional:eek:
June 23, 2005 - 02:17 PM on June 23rd, 2005
3, there’s a group of militant Atheists in Madison, WI, that various Fox shows have on. I’m surprised that they aren’t in court right now challenging the comparative benefit of Church buildings vs. homeless shelters vs. battered women’s shelters vs. a crack house.
June 23, 2005 - 02:22 PM on June 23rd, 2005
do we really even need a supreme court anymore?
What function do they serve? besides allowing millions of babies to be killed and people’s land to be stolen.
I have no problem with 2 branches of government….. we’ll continue winning all the elections anyway.
June 23, 2005 - 03:48 PM on June 23rd, 2005
Crap- our freedoms just got blown out of the water.
This is one thing that the radicals on both FreeRepublic.com and DemocratUnderground.com is agreeing on. When those two fuck ups agree, you know it’s wrong!
Ted
June 23, 2005 - 03:52 PM on June 23rd, 2005
Now this is interesting:
He (Justice John Paul Stevens ) was joined in that view (consenting) by justices Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Dissenting were justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
This is interesting. By traditional stereotypes like Shiloh likes to use, you would have thought the conservatives would be the ones voting for this. However, it pretty much follows party lines, with the liberals voting to step on the little guy and to support corporate America.
See? The liberals are just as beholden to corporate America as the Conservatives are.
Ted
June 23, 2005 - 03:57 PM on June 23rd, 2005
I agree with PCD, these justices should be classified as enemy combatants and subject to Christina Aguilera at high volumes.
….and cold rice pilaf.
June 23, 2005 - 03:57 PM on June 23rd, 2005
9,
That’s not enough punishment- I say the Black Eyed Peas at loud volumes.
Ted
June 23, 2005 - 04:12 PM on June 23rd, 2005
This is rediculous
1: I agree
2: I concur
10: Hey the black eyed peas are great, may i suggest Baha Men on repeat
June 23, 2005 - 04:18 PM on June 23rd, 2005
11,
You’re nuttier than a circus elephants turd!
Ted
June 23, 2005 - 04:20 PM on June 23rd, 2005
You have no taste in music or do you just not get it
June 23, 2005 - 04:30 PM on June 23rd, 2005
14,
I’ve been a semi-professional musician for 20 years. I know “suck” when I hear it.
Ted
June 23, 2005 - 05:36 PM on June 23rd, 2005
This new idea of government will help to make us all good little third world people, it is an attack on all people and a attack on the ideals of this nation. it is time to start fighting back anyway you can.
I ask you, do you have any idea of how much corruption is in local and state and federal government and how much money will be made on taking people’s homes away and how long before we see a Waco a day?
June 23, 2005 - 05:47 PM on June 23rd, 2005
June 23, 2005 - 06:08 PM on June 23rd, 2005
I used to live in CT. Who really needs to be shot are the New London councilmen who not only voted for this but pushed the lawsuit to the SC. It won’t be a surprise to find out these are all DEMOCRATS.
June 23, 2005 - 07:14 PM on June 23rd, 2005
8-Great point. I for one am not pleased with this. What type of precedent does this set?
June 23, 2005 - 09:00 PM on June 23rd, 2005
8 - Actually this upholds a previous borderline ruling. I can’t remember when it was, but it was over urban renewel with cities basically eminent domaining tenements and slums and then turning them over to businesses to build “respectable” (my word, not any of theirs) buildings instead. With a 5 - 4 ruling this will be revisited. My biggest surprise, and I was joined in this by a good lawyer friend who I discussed this with for a while this afternoon, was that Stevens was part of the majority here.
June 23, 2005 - 09:26 PM on June 23rd, 2005
I heard on the news we had a case here in Michigan dealing with Em Dom. The Michigan SC ruled against turning over privately held land in similar circumstances.
Since it’s a state matter, the SCOTUS ruling doesn’t apply.
Unless states’ rights no longer exist.
June 23, 2005 - 09:32 PM on June 23rd, 2005
20-It would be my guess that the State Constitution trumps this. But those states that aren’t like ours could be in for some real problems.
June 23, 2005 - 09:41 PM on June 23rd, 2005
Yes. Except for Levin and Stabenow, and Gov. Jen, and the auto industry, it’s not a bad place to be.
June 23, 2005 - 09:46 PM on June 23rd, 2005
22- Isn’t that the truth!:lol:
June 23, 2005 - 09:47 PM on June 23rd, 2005
Yes, thankfully the Minnesota Constitution doesn’t allow it either. For who have driven 35W and 494, Best Buy built a huge headquarters there after the city of Richfield ED’d it and gave it to Best Buy. They did a fast grab and had the building built before it got to the Minnesota Supreme Court, who didn’t agree with Richfield. Afterwards Walser (the car dealership who was there before) was rewarded handsomly, along with full legal fees.
June 23, 2005 - 09:51 PM on June 23rd, 2005
Though I am happy they got their money, it wasn’t right!
June 24, 2005 - 08:17 AM on June 24th, 2005
8 - Good, I’m glad that I am not the only one who thinks this is all ass about face. Mind you Kilo and PCD jumped on the bash a democrat bandwagon, so maybe we just don’t have a good handle on this subject.
For the record, in my opinion this is a crap decision, I’m OK with Em Dom for infrastructure but i’m not even sure I agree with its use for public buildings, as far as private use as in this case, make the residents an offer too good to refuse, or find another location.
What options are open to the residents now? is it too late for them? can congress clarify the law to specifically limit the powers to infrastructure? (remember I’m still very much a newcommer to US Government)
June 24, 2005 - 08:20 AM on June 24th, 2005
26, Redfred, from personal experience in CT I can tell you the residents are screwed. The bulldozer will be moving as soon as the CT State Troopers can guarantee that no one will jump in front of the bulldozers like that idiot did in Palestine.
June 24, 2005 - 08:22 AM on June 24th, 2005
Redrfed, you have to remember that to the Lefties in america…..EVERYTING is infrastructure, and anything the government does under the guise of “helping people” is A-OK in their book.
June 24, 2005 - 08:43 AM on June 24th, 2005
27 - I kinda figured they were screwed, hopefully something can be done before other municipalities follow suit.
28 - you really hate them don’t you? I am certainly left wing in my politics but so very little of what you claim about my kind bears any kind of resemblance in reality. I would happily join you in condemning the extremists, both right and left wing, but the majority of Democrats and republicans do not fall in to these categories. Just because I lean to the left does not mean I want to install Stalin into the white house, your sweeping generalizations are completely unfounded.
June 24, 2005 - 08:45 AM on June 24th, 2005
29-No they really aren’t Redfred. You may feel a certain way, but the only people promoted within your party are the extemists. People like the Libermans are cast aside.
June 24, 2005 - 08:46 AM on June 24th, 2005
29, Redfred, I invite you to Dubuque where the Democrats do act as bad as Mike Kilo depicts. We even have union that practice Unionism the old fashioned way, THEY HURT PEOPLE TO GET THEIR WAY!
June 24, 2005 - 09:10 AM on June 24th, 2005
30 - They are not my party, I would gladly vote republican if I thought they had a better candidate. I remember when the Labour party for what ever reason selected Michael Foot in the early 80s, I was only a kid then and even I knew he was a moron and wouldn’t have voted for him if he was the only candidate. Tony Blair is exactly the kind of person I would vote for, a centralist left winger with Charisma.
31 - And I could show you the profiteering right winger who run sweat shops to increase their profit at the expense of others lives…. doesn’t mean I need to deride you because you share a right ring leaning.
June 24, 2005 - 09:13 AM on June 24th, 2005
32, I am an ultraconservative and proud of it. In California and Massachusetts that merits the death penalty.
June 24, 2005 - 09:18 AM on June 24th, 2005
33- I never doubted it for a second.
June 24, 2005 - 09:27 AM on June 24th, 2005
I am a moderate liberitarian.
June 24, 2005 - 09:28 AM on June 24th, 2005
Moderate is hardly a term I would associate with you Mike
June 24, 2005 - 09:31 AM on June 24th, 2005
36, Mike is moderate for a pro-pot libertarian. I met a few of those in CA and IA. Just a suggestion, don’t get between them and their weed. That is almost as dangerous as getting between a GOP “Moderate” and a MSM reporter.
June 24, 2005 - 09:34 AM on June 24th, 2005
I don’t do weed..though I am for across the board legalization.
I am totally a moderate…. I’ll give you some examples.
Abortion..basically against, though I would NOT support a constitutional ban.
Drugs… pro-legalization…EVERYTHING.
religion.. I’m for separation of church and state (that goes for you, too, black clergy…and muslims).
see, moderate.
June 24, 2005 - 09:38 AM on June 24th, 2005
and what’s wrong with pro-pot libertarians??????? :mrgreen::cool:
June 24, 2005 - 09:41 AM on June 24th, 2005
39, they don’t take no for an answer.
June 24, 2005 - 09:44 AM on June 24th, 2005
I think it’s the CAPITALIZATION that hints that you are not exactly moderate, that and your propensity for throwing poop when anyone mentions a left winger.
June 24, 2005 - 09:47 AM on June 24th, 2005
41, you have to forgive Mike his “SHOUTING”. He lives in “Philthydelphia”. It causes severe frustration in normal folk.
Ever wonder why “Philthydelphians” were so prone to violence? Think back on the mayor dropping a bomb on the Move Row House.
June 24, 2005 - 09:50 AM on June 24th, 2005
well that explains a lot, I’ll grant you. I had my 10th birthday in Philli, seemed like a nice place to me, but then I was 10 and protected from the harsh realities… like Mike:lol:
June 24, 2005 - 09:56 AM on June 24th, 2005
Hey, I’m not actually FROM here….
but I’ve been here for 15 years now
June 24, 2005 - 10:02 AM on June 24th, 2005
44, Mike, remember the John Wayne movie, El Dorado? You are the piano player, and I’m the Sheriff (Played by Robert Mitchum). Final line of the scene before Mitchum opens fire is, “Well MOVE!” I was reminded of that dialogue when reading your post, Mike.
June 25, 2005 - 02:10 PM on June 25th, 2005
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!
If more people don’t start standing up for your constitutional rights, then ALL American’s will lose anything. Start a petition in your area to IMPEACH these stupid supreme court judges that all SO willing to take away your rights and property without batting a eye.
DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!!!
June 27, 2005 - 12:05 AM on June 27th, 2005
Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right … Wherever the power, that is put in … hands for government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny…”
– John Locke
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights: namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
– Virginia bill of Rights, June 12, 1776
THE FIGHT COMES BACK TO CONNECTICUT!!!!
“… the present ministry [King George], being instigated by the devil and led by their wicked and corrupt hearers have a design to take away our liberties and properties, and to enslave us forever.”
– 1774, some farmers in Farmington Connecticut
“Why stand we here idle? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
– Patrick Henry - Speech in Virginia Convention March 1775
June 27, 2005 - 12:14 AM on June 27th, 2005
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Thomas Jefferson
June 27, 2005 - 12:17 AM on June 27th, 2005
“… God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
June 27, 2005 - 05:07 AM on June 27th, 2005
the rights of the individual are being weakened for the sake of ’security’ and now, evidently, commerce.
America will be engaged in battle after battle regarding privacy in the next 20 years, & G_d help us if these Constitutinal protections are diminished.
in the event they are, perhaps we can have a contest on what to name the new country we would become in that event, cause it sure wouldn’t seem right to keep calling it America
June 27, 2005 - 06:50 AM on June 27th, 2005
50, lady shiloh running eagle, the 5 SC votes gutting the 5th amendment are the Liberal/Progressives on the court. You want protections from the government, put more conservatives on the court like Thomas and Scalia.
June 27, 2005 - 07:39 AM on June 27th, 2005
pcd
i am not asking for any protection from the government. i am asking the government to leave the Constitutional protections in place.
how is the 5th amend being gutted?
June 27, 2005 - 07:44 AM on June 27th, 2005
The takings clause was gutted by the SC decision on eminent domain, and all the Liberals voted for the gov’t being able to take your home or business for government enrichment, ie. supposedly higher tax revinues.
June 27, 2005 - 07:49 AM on June 27th, 2005
52, also lady shiloh running eagle, the Bill of Rights, first 12 amendments to the Constitution were all to limit government power. If you want those amendments left alone to protect your rights, then you ARE asking for protection from the government. Maybe your name sould be changed to Running Dummy.
June 27, 2005 - 07:51 AM on June 27th, 2005
52 - Eminent domain is part of the 5th Amendment
53 - If you drop the partisan glasses you’d notice that most liberals seem awfully pissed about this too…
June 27, 2005 - 07:51 AM on June 27th, 2005
governments come & go with varying degrees of competency. i don’t place my faith in governments - i place my faith in the Constitution.
June 27, 2005 - 07:56 AM on June 27th, 2005
i am also pissed about it.
June 27, 2005 - 07:57 AM on June 27th, 2005
Well, for once I agree with shitloh.
but how does that 2nd amendment fare with your buddies????
Mr. ACLU???
June 27, 2005 - 07:58 AM on June 27th, 2005
56, then learn the Constitution, dummy. There is more to the 5th Amendment than not incriminating yourself.
55, Astro, the Liberal/Progressives want more judges on the SC like the 5 that voted to nullify the 5th Amendment. That is faux outrage to me. If they were truly consistent, they’d be demanding the 5 resign/retire, but they’ve been silent on that.
June 27, 2005 - 08:00 AM on June 27th, 2005
PCD.
you should know by now, the liberals don’t believe in constitutional democracy..they believe in liberal judicial fiat.
June 27, 2005 - 08:05 AM on June 27th, 2005
60, Mike, I think lady shiloh running eagle dummy has shown how truly stupid he is. Doesn’t know the 5th Amendment, the then says he isn’t seeking protection from the government when the freaking SC decision we are talking about is all about being protected from the government taking your possessions. What an addled, ignorant, self centered FOOL!
July 1, 2005 - 08:12 PM on July 1st, 2005
I am really upset with our Supreme (is it?) court ruling on property ownership. Nobody but nobody has the right to take away the land that you own unless there is some easily understood reason –like a hi-way or something. To allow an opening for some big money operation to work an angle and wrangle a way to take someone’s property is very very wrong and is a power play by the rich and “don’t give a —- powerful”. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court is asking for a serious uprising in this country by threatening to take property away from the everyday common working people. It is about time that we at least put term limits on the Supreme court. They need to rethink this one.
July 4, 2005 - 07:24 PM on July 4th, 2005
Is America for sale?
Before they force me to burn my copy of the Constitution, I shall repeat this excerpt from the Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall … be deprived of … property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Anything to the contrary is owed no respect….
UNLESS We use their decision to confiscate the “5″ Justices’ private homes to build [fill in your favorite motel]. I further say we compensate them $1 each. No that sounds like “just” to me. [See, maybe money does have influence.]
July 10, 2005 - 08:14 AM on July 10th, 2005
My father, who is a real estate pro, just told me about this. In an internet search, this is the only site that I came across that broached the subject of eminent domain. Are any public branches opposing this or trying to overthrow the decision? This is definately against the constitution!! It’s one thing to lose your home to a highway project, but to lose your home to a Dollar General is another. STUPID DECISIONS BY STUPID PEOPLE, I’D SAY!