One Has To Wonder

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - 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 — assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as
handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in
America — was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are
slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a
stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority
to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to
accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party,
but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process, including large corporations
and development firms."

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."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood
in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to
raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a
public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners'
property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London
Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a
taking only if it eliminates blight.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,
as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

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

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling
industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has
suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the
country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era
houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by
several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the
case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more
than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract
tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp.
research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities,
which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring
urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and
Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation"
for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and
the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an
unjustified taking of their property.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at
the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government
Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing
services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies.
The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

Note:

Is it not interesting that the liberal and conservative Supreme Court Justices bumped heads on this one.

Instead of paying attention to what will effect us here in the US--everytime I clicked onto to Fox news recently--and while tragic, wall to wall coverage of the Aruba case took up massive air time.

It would seem that the media, in the spirit of Circus Maximus, is busy trying to distract the masses (who know all about Aruba, Michael Jackson, and other curious stories) away from what will effect it most--or am I being cynical?

Rex

It is not much different in what the IRS can currently do. I am just curious as to how long the citizens of this country will tolerate such things.


Unfortunately until a thing affects us individually we usually sit by and do nothing.

To quote Martin Niemöller

'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

Here is a link to a a Delaware paper where you can read the whole story!

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs ... 40318/1006

United States of America, the home of the free!

In the USA there is no reason anyone should be worried about losing their home! Especially to build another shopping mall because the local goverment thinks it will generate more business!

If we dont stand up and do something about issues like this now, what is going to be next?

IT IS SCARY.......

Hey, Mom & Pops are fair game to get kicked off their land, but the The Three Toed Saber Tooth Spotted Salamander Owl is still protected

Rex

"In 1778 the states debated the merits of the proposed Constitution. Along with the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers documented the political context in which the Constitution was born. The Federalist Papers defended the concept of a strong central government with their arguments in favor of the constitution. The Anti-Federalists saw in the constitution threats to rights and liberties so recently won from England. The authors did not only discuss the issues of the constitution, many general problems of politics were also put under debate; Should the members of the government be elected by direct vote of the people?, Does slavery have any place in a nation dedicated to liberty? etc."


Pity there wasn't some type of "ANTI-FEDERALIST" organization or division of government whose job it was to keep the the spirit of what the founding fathers appear to have wanted to create.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

Don,

I'm not sure where to begin in response to your reply since only a book-length reply would be suitable in all fairness to the subject matter.

Do you recall the mantra, "It takes a village to raise a child?" In other words, the state knows what's best for our children.

Chuck Schumer blatantly came out in support of the "Socialist Revolution" which, in my opinion, is only a small step towards Communism.

Howabout the claim that the Constitution is a "Living Document" that needs to grow with the times? Some want it to give and bend to feel good legislation.

Michael Moore wants us all to pay out 75% or more of what we all make in taxes as stated during an interview. This is redistribution of wealth such as in Communism.

The will of the people evidenced by votes is routinely overturned after shopping a suit to one, unelected person in black robes. So much for check and balances.

I once wrote of the 'doomsday solution.' Communism is essentially considered a state religion or meant to replace religion in that the first steps to getting there is removing religion from the people. The process is very slow. First remove the Ten Commandments from public places. Then destroy the family unit by putting down fathers, marriage and turning over the children to the "village." Islamic-fascism seems to be gripped or otherwise embraced by the hate America first crowd. Islam good; Christianity bad so sayeth the media. The problem is that once the anti-family, Christian, and Constitution crowd gets their way, one of the vehicle used--Radical Islam--will turn on them as infidels.

I do believe that their is a cultural war going on right now. The minority is much louder and given to forming pressure groups. The majority is a live and let live group, not given to making noise unless pushed beyond all tolerances.

A close study of current events will leave one to consider that communism is here and very active, but most people won't realize this because their busy with Aruba, Michael Jackson, MTV, Hollywood gossip, and anything else the media uses to distract the masses.

Another trick is use caustic rhetoric to steer and develop events to their liking. Against gay marriage? You're a homophobe. You want fair employment practices for all? You're a racist and etceteras. Don't like the way something went down (three white firefighters raising the flag at ground zero but the proposed statue consisted of a white, black and hispanic so as not to exclude or offend anyone) revise history.

The only protection against the ultimate take over is the Constitution, and therefore, any attacks upon that very important document must not be taken lightly. The Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, knew this then and it still applies now. Allowing private parties to take real property from private parties is a travesty and a perverted step towards who knows what.

I could go on here, but, if I really want to do something about it, then I should move towards hanging a shingle on my own law office--after finishing law school and passing the bar--and confronting them in the courts while hoping the bench officer is a strict constructionist and not a supporter of the "socialist revolution."

Rex

post script: Someone will probably read this in 20-years and send me to a reeducation camp.