US Petition argues that abuses are occurring

Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
478
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
High court asked to rehear Kelo case

Petition argues that abuses dismissed by the majority are already occurring
Posted: July 19, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
***************************************
The Connecticut homeowners who lost the landmark Supreme Court eminent domain decision filed a petition yesterday for a rehearing. The families want the high court to reconsider the 5-4 ruling they say already has "opened up the floodgates to eminent domain abuse."

"We will be the first to admit that our chances of success with this motion are extremely small, but if there is any case that deserves to reheard by the Supreme Court, it is the Kelo case," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice. Bullock called the June 23 decision the worst in years.

"Hopefully the court will see the abuse of power that it has unleashed and will reconsider its misguided and dangerous opinion," he said.

The case of Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., allows the municipal government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to make way for an office complex that will provide economic benefits, including more tax revenue for the city.

While the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge.

The new petition argues that consequent abuses dismissed by the majority opinion as hypothetical already are occurring throughout the country.
In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted a world in which a Motel 6 can be taken for a Ritz Carlton and homes for a shopping mall, noted Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the institute and co-counsel in the Kelo case.

The Institute for Justice cited many examples of lower-tax producing businesses being taken for higher-tax producing ones since the Supreme Court's ruling.

Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport, Texas, began legal filings to seize two family-owned seafood companies to make way for a more upscale business – an $8 million private boat marina.

In Sunset Hills, Mo., homes already are being taken for shopping malls after the city council voted July 12 to allow the condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses.

Also in Missouri, the city of Arnold plans to take 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold Veterans of Foreign Wars post, for a Lowe's hardware store and a strip mall.

The Institute for Justice argues that for less wealthy individuals and businesses, the cost of litigation will very quickly exceed the value of the property, which is why nearly all appellate public use cases in the state courts involve challenges by larger business owners.

Homeowner and small business cases, when they are brought at all, typically involve rare pro bono or public interest litigation.

"Rarely does a Supreme Court decision generate such uniform and nearly universal outrage," said Chip Mellor, president of Institute for Justice.

"Clearly, Americans understand just how threatening the court's decision is for ordinary home and small business owners everywhere."

If the court will not rehear the case, the homeowners at least want the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court to be vacated and allow more evidence to be submitted about the takings in the case.

The institute argues that the U.S. Supreme Court announced new standards in the use of eminent domain for economic development in Kelo, and four years have passed since the trial in the case.

One week after the Kelo decision, the institute announced a $3 million "Hands Off My Home" campaign to halt eminent domain for private profit. The group says the campaign will "focus the universal wave of opposition to the Kelo ruling to, among other actions, ask state courts to enforce the "public use" limitations found in every state constitution and to support citizen activists nationwide who are urging their state and local officials to set stricter standards for the use of eminent domain."

Already, according to the institute, lawmakers in 25 states have introduced or promised to introduce legislation reforming the use of eminent domain for private development.

The institute says, however that unless all 50 states enact such legislation, homeowners could be left in jeopardy.

The U.S. Congress also is considering several bills to prohibit the use of federal funds for municipal projects that use eminent domain for private development.
Thanks,

iBear
 
As you may remember, the Supreme Court ruled against a group of property owners in New London, Conn., who challenged a city plan to demolish their riverfront homes to make way for offices, a hotel and other commercial buildings. The Supreme Court Justices gave a few opinions of their decision:

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the majority opinion, said such projects are within the scope of a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution that authorizes condemning property for "public use."

Stevens wrote that promoting economic development, the stated goal of the New London project, "is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized," such as taking land for roads, parks or libraries.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority's interpretation of "public use" was so broad that "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."

Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Dissenting with O'Connor were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Thanks,

iBear
 
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority's interpretation of "public use" was so broad that "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."
****************************************************
Hmmmmmm, just conjecture, but, I'm wondering, could this be why she stepped down from the Supreme Court and decided to retire? Just wondering if anybody knows anything about this?
Thanks,

iBear
 
ibear said:
Hmmmmmm, just conjecture, but, I'm wondering, could this be why she stepped down from the Supreme Court and decided to retire? Just wondering if anybody knows anything about this?


Her husband is very ill I understand.
 
The new nominee is a corporate lawyer so I'm not sure how much help he will be on this issue.

What really dissapoints me is that at the national level neither the Dems. nor the GOP have really jumped on this very popular issue. It shows how much that money has corrupted the system. and also reflects the current political and economic climate.

To look at the root cause of a lot of this, people want their taxes cut and will vote out any politician who raises taxes. However at the same time they are demanding services, police, fire dept, keeping the streets clean, most states offer some sort of medical coverage for low income people the expansion of medicaid to cover a lot of mental health treatment has added a lot of expense also.

Taxes have been cut at the federal and many state levels, towns and municipalities have less money coming in and they must find some way to raise revenue without raising taxes. The simple fact is that seniors and low income people pay very little in taxes so the only way to raise revenue is to get them out and get the rich in, because having more money they pay more in taxes.

I feel besides some sort of law banning taking of property for commercial development, that we really need some sort of a national dialogue regarding what sort of services we expect, and what we are willing to pay for. This is illustrated to me recently by someone I know who is conservative, but moved from their state to another because their state does not have as generous social welfare for their kids which they had but are unable to pay for out of their own jobs.

Although I am a Democrat, and believe in a social safety net, I really feel that if people want lower taxes that rather than continue to run up debt, we should cut social programs to make people understand the consequences of their decisions rather than making them think they can "have it all" at the expense of shifting the debt to their kids when they grow up. Perhaps if we did this there would be more of an understanding of cost versus benefit of various expenditures.
 
Very few political candidates are willing to tell the voters they can't "have it all." Gene McCarthy was one. He one only one state primary in 1968 - Oregon IIRC, but Oregon gave us one of the "2" in the Gulf of Tonkin vote, Wayne the Man.
 
If this decision is left standing and common people start having their homes taken to build a new Mini-mall you'll start seeing body bags coming out of these "incidents".

Wonder if that will make the SC reconsider this idiotic ruling.
 
There may be a legislative solution. This will be a popular uprising- political we hope, not bags.


munk
 
munk said:
There may be a legislative solution. This will be a popular uprising- political we hope, not bags.


munk

I think there IS a legislative solution also. I just hope the media keeps the whole issue up there in the public mind for long enough for the popular uprising to occurr. I feel like I have been negligent because I have not emailed my state and federal representatives about it yet.
 
hollowdweller wrote:
“Although I am a Democrat, and believe in a social safety net, I really feel that if people want lower taxes that rather than continue to run up debt, we should cut social programs to make people understand the consequences of their decisions rather than making them think they can "have it all" at the expense of shifting the debt to their kids when they grow up. Perhaps if we did this there would be more of an understanding of cost versus benefit of various expenditures.”

You sure don’t sound like a Democrat !!!
May your tribe increase ! :D



Munk wrote:
“There may be a legislative solution.”

I fear that Clinton’s judges (i.e. ACLU’s chief counsel), along with Bush 1st’s “compromise” judges (who passed all the Democrats’ litmus tests) will immediately rule any “legislative solution” to be unconstitutional.
After all, if they have just ruled that it is Constitutional for Boss Hawg to take your home for profit, then any law that tries to interfere with Boss Hawg in his pursuit of your property is obviously Unconstitutional.
If the Constitution didn’t faze the supreme court, don’t expect them to to be cowed by some new law. (Didn’t they recently rule that something must be Constitutional, or even a Constitutional right, on the basis that some other countries do it ?)

What is needed is a Constitutional amendment that, at minimum, invalidates this ruling & all the reasoning that it was based on; or better yet, that says “if the Constitution doesn’t say it, then it is not in the Constitution; it cannot be `inferred,’ ‘deduced;’ ‘intuited,’ or otherwise prevaricated; such concerns must be submitted to the CITIZENS for THEIR ruling.” (So that this “government of the people, by the people, & for the people, shall not perish from the earth”).

“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee
 
Relief 9/12 said:
hollowdweller wrote:
“Although I am a Democrat, and believe in a social safety net, I really feel that if people want lower taxes that rather than continue to run up debt, we should cut social programs to make people understand the consequences of their decisions rather than making them think they can "have it all" at the expense of shifting the debt to their kids when they grow up. Perhaps if we did this there would be more of an understanding of cost versus benefit of various expenditures.”

You sure don’t sound like a Democrat !!!
May your tribe increase ! :D

Thanks. My point is if people really would be allowed to feel the effect of their political decisions they might vote to raise a tax or two or to cut some unnecessary programs in order to keep or start ones we really need.

Actually if you look Clinton and Gore pursued a pay as you go policy and the deficit went down. Bush abandoned this policy and the deficit has skyrocketed. If you look at the numbers over the years Republicans have raised the deficit more over the years than Democrats.

Also if you look at President Bush's history, you will see that he and his partners convinced the town of Arlington? Texas to use their powers of to take the land of the Matthews? family to build the new staduim for his team. Then he sold it and made a hefty profit, leaving the new owners to pay the bill when the court ruled that the city did not give the property owners fair compensation for their confiscated land, but he was long gone by then. :D

I do totally agree we need some sort of legislation to prevent this.
 
Clinton went along with popular will, and the Republican take over of both houses and accepted the need for a balanced budget. He had no 9-11, and an economic upturn. He could not have had a balanced budget without the Republican majority. Certainly his own party had failed to bring one about and was too split do accomplish it without the Republicans.

However, Hollow, your idea is a sound one- adopt a single system, either liberal or conservative, and see what happens and vote on the results. We have mish mash, and probably always will.
They call it a natural balance, but it seems self defeating.

munk
 
munk said:
Clinton went along with popular will, and the Republican take over of both houses and accepted the need for a balanced budget. He had no 9-11, and an economic upturn. He could not have had a balanced budget without the Republican majority. Certainly his own party had failed to bring one about and was too split do accomplish it without the Republicans.
munk

I agree with you that Clinton was not a deficit hawk originally. I really give credit for bringing the deficit to the public consciousness to Reagan originally who unfortunately tripled it by increasing defense spending at the same time as cutting taxes and then the person who actually made it an issue Ross Perot. Before that there was really no political will to do anything about it.

However remember that Clinton's budget, that raised some taxes and cut some programs passed with NO republican votes.(Dem majority then) If we had had the Republican majority I doubt it would have passed and I question if the economic growth alone would have been enough to balance the budget. Remember Bob Dole on the Senate floor predicting that the budget would tank the economy?

True Bush did have 9/11 and no upturn, but unlike Clinton he had a surplus and instead of using it to pay off the national debt he cut taxes. I think the economy would have been stimulated more by paying off the national debt than by giving tax breaks, as a usually sizable portion of the expenses we have is the interest on the national debt. As long as we have a large national debt I kind of feel that cutting taxes is irresponsible unless it is balanced by cuts in spending. Also new or exsisting programs in the social safety net could be funded without tax increases if we cut the national debt.
 
munk said:
There may be a legislative solution. This will be a popular uprising- political we hope, not bags.


munk
YES! You got that right!

Thanks,

iBear
 
Back
Top