Court Says: Screw the 5th Amendment

[Durandal]

Having fought and won an eminent domain case against a legitimate public use (they wanted to build a high school on a part of our farm), all I can say is F*UCK this...

Bunch of greedy jackasses who want to fund pet projects. Public means roads, schools, hospitals, government facilities, and parks, not a goddamn developer who wants to make money.

Also one of the reasons why I love Kentucky so much. A citizen has a LOT more rights here than say, in Ohio or Massachusetts.

Damn, I cannot believe just how pissed off I am with Conn Supreme Court.


Supreme Court takes eminent domain case

Can cities take your property for economic development?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide when governments may seize people's homes and businesses for economic development projects, a key question as cash-strapped cities seek ways to generate tax revenue.

At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is given "just compensation" and the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.

They argued the taking would be proper only if it served to revitalize slums or blighted areas dangerous to the public.

"I'm not willing to give up what I have just because someone else can generate more taxes here," said homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the neighborhood known as Fort Trumbull for more than 100 years.

New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development plans serving a "public purpose" -- such as boosting economic growth -- are valid "public use" projects that outweigh the property rights of the homeowners.

10,000 properties threatened or condemned

The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned between 1998 and 2002, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

In many cases, according to the group, cities are pushing the limits of their power to accommodate wealthy developers. Courts, meanwhile, are divided over the extent of city power, with seven states saying economic development can justify a taking and eight states allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

In New London, city officials envision replacing a stagnant enclave with commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

"The record is clear that New London was a city desperate for economic rejuvenation," the city's legal filing states, in asking the high court to defer to local governments in deciding what constitutes "public use."

According to the residents' filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight; they are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Another three -- Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts -- have indicated they probably will find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional, while the remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/28/seizing.property.ap/

[Abolith]

a very good friend of mine had an eminent domain case dumped on him becase the city of bishop wanted a new highway and the best route was smack through his 10 acres. so they paid him for the .5 acres that they covered in asphalt and went on their merry way splitting his property in half (half on one side and half on the other) He sued and won. so the city had t buy the whole 10 acres but he still lost his dream cabin in the high desert, that his father and grandfather built by hand. he is still BEYOND pissed about it and is still to this day trying to get it back, after all it was the family cabin.

[SOG]

well whatever the **** u do dont go up-armoring your back-ho and slinging a gun from it and running it through the town BA baracus style. stay at distance and shoot the ****ers!

on the serious side thats really ****ed up and i feel for you man. sucks when it happens in the city which is all the time for all sorts of bastard developments all in the name of overdevelopment and greenbacks. i was talking to my friend in west virginia who said none of that big city **** would happen in his backyard. i told him it'd get him someday.

[Hot Lips]

Sucks. What do they consider "just compensation"? Current market value of the actual or replacement value and relocation expense?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well now...see there's another instance of the court very broadly interpreting the Constitution. Just as in the infamous MA gay marriage case the court has thrown years of policy out the window, interpreted things in a new way, and has created new law (though if Hank were here- he'd prolly say that the law was actually there all along, and body slam me again). But let's not go down that road again...

I disagree with this courts decision as well...though I don't know diddly about eminent domain law. But it seems to be another case of an activist judiciary flexing its muscles, and it sucks. So if the government can generate revenue by building something there, doesn't that amount to a blank check for any land developer to make sweet deals with local governments in order to get whatever land they want?

[Durandal]

Well now...see there's another instance of the court very broadly interpreting the Constitution. Just as in the infamous MA gay marriage case the court has thrown years of policy out the window, interpreted things in a new way, and has created new law (though if Hank were here- he'd prolly say that the law was actually there all along, and body slam me again). But let's not go down that road again...

I disagree with this courts decision as well...though I don't know diddly about eminent domain law. But it seems to be another case of an activist judiciary flexing its muscles, and it sucks. So if the government can generate revenue by building something there, doesn't that amount to a blank check for any land developer to make sweet deals with local governments in order to get whatever land they want?

I have to disagree with you on this...

A) MA court ruling on gay marriage was maintaining status quo or (depending on how you look at it) argues that a certain group of people can have the same rights as another. This ruling we are currently discussing is taking something away...their interpretation is that tax dollars equal "public" and thus ruled, in my view, against the meaning of the 5th Amendment which is the protection of the individual and tying the governments hands unless the issue is extremely important (like developing the interstate system back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s). Now they can simply take take take and show little reason why..."Oh for taxes."

B) Neither examples are courts actually making new laws but interpreting existing ones (along with the part of the COnstitution that deals with it).

I will however, agree that with you that this opens up a whole new level of criminal or unethical practices between business and governments. Which in some ways, the 5th Amendment protected us from.

Why can't people see the wisdom in our founding forefathers' creation? Why change it to suit some screwed up political need/greed? This pisses me off SO much.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well now...see there's another instance of the court very broadly interpreting the Constitution. Just as in the infamous MA gay marriage case the court has thrown years of policy out the window, interpreted things in a new way, and has created new law (though if Hank were here- he'd prolly say that the law was actually there all along, and body slam me again). But let's not go down that road again...

I disagree with this courts decision as well...though I don't know diddly about eminent domain law. But it seems to be another case of an activist judiciary flexing its muscles, and it sucks. So if the government can generate revenue by building something there, doesn't that amount to a blank check for any land developer to make sweet deals with local governments in order to get whatever land they want?

I have to disagree with you on this...

A) MA court ruling on gay marriage was maintaining status quo or (depending on how you look at it) argues that a certain group of people can have the same rights as another. This ruling we are currently discussing is taking something away...their interpretation is that tax dollars equal "public" and thus ruled, in my view, against the meaning of the 5th Amendment which is the protection of the individual and tying the governments hands unless the issue is extremely important (like developing the interstate system back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s). Now they can simply take take take and show little reason why..."Oh for taxes."

B) Neither examples are courts actually making new laws but interpreting existing ones (along with the part of the COnstitution that deals with it).

I will however, agree that with you that this opens up a whole new level of criminal or unethical practices between business and governments. Which in some ways, the 5th Amendment protected us from.

Why can't people see the wisdom in our founding forefathers' creation? Why change it to suit some screwed up political need/greed? This pisses me off SO much.

Fair enough - but despite the substance of the two rulings (gay marriage being interpreted as a "good" or "positive" thing, and the eminent domain ruling being "negative") - the common thread running through both rulings is that judges, not a legislature, essentially changed the Constitutional status quo with a ruling.

The courts obviously saw both as a positive thing -in the eminent domain ruling, the tax revenue and the "public good" being the positive segment. So it's simply that we more conservative property-rights types dislike the particulars. Again, as in the gay marriage ruling - it is not the substance in particular that I disagree with, but the mechanism by which it is achieved. Surely it's "legal" - but I don't like this kind of activism (IMHO), no matter what it's for. It puts too much power into too few hands.

A related item from CNN yesterday which kind of touches on the subject..



CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he believes "abstract moralizing" has led the American judicial system into a quagmire, and that matters such as abortion and assisted suicide are "too fundamental" to be resolved by judges.

"What I am questioning is the propriety, indeed the sanity, of having value-laden decisions such as these made for the entire society ... by judges," Scalia said on Tuesday during an appearance at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

In some cases -- and in response to a question from the audience, he acknowledged Brown vs. Board of Education was one -- there is a societal benefit when a court rules against prevailing popular opinion, but generally speaking it is fundamentally bad for democracy, he said.

While Scalia never mentioned the gay marriage issue specifically, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has come under fire nationally for overstepping its authority on the issue.

That court ruled last year that gay couples constitutionally could not be denied marriage licenses; the decision paved the way for the nation's first state-sanctioned same-*** marriages.

"I believe in liberal democracy, which is a democracy that worries about the tyranny of the majority, but it is the majority itself that must draw the lines," Scalia said.

As an example, he cited the women's suffrage movement, which he said resulted from the will of the people, not a court.

On an unrelated issue, Scalia was asked why he refused to step aside in a case involving Vice President **** Cheney when the two had gone duck hunting together.

At first he refused to discuss the case, but then said there was no legal precedent for recusal and that any controversy was whipped up by the media.

Wow, it's not often that one article involves abortion, gay marriage, women's voting rights, and duck hunting.