Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
colehart said:The person that initiates the take over of my property for private use will not be a happy person when they face me.
acludem said:Once again, the ruling allows states to define what "public use" actually means. In this case, the court ruled that Connecticuts current definition, or lack thereof was Constitutional. I have already said, I find the court's reasoning to be dubious at best, but the majority's decision s Many states already have in their laws and/or Constitutions strongly worded definitions of what "public use" means in terms of eminent domain. This decision does not overturn those guidelines. There will be an outcry amongst voters and legislators will listen. You will see in initiative states, ballot issues to strictly define what "public use" is, and I guarantee you the Supreme Court won't overturn those standards. In other states, the legislatures will act to set strict standards. The ruling was actually based, by the way, on another decision in a previous SCOTUS decision written by none other than Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.
Here's an interesting, non-partisan analysis of the decision:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/supreme-court-eminent-domain-ruling.php
acludem
Actually right now it's only three states that have such definitive laws as to what constitutes (pardon pun) public use.. my state happens to be one of them but even that hasn't stopped developers attempts to wipe out a whole town mainstreet full of businesses/residences (upper middleclass) restuarants, photography studio, dress boutique, old fashioned ice cream/candy store, and antique sstore... For a giant health spa... This court ruling, unless a miracle happens was their biggest hope to block the developers from having carte blanche.acludem said:Once again, the ruling allows states to define what "public use" actually means. In this case, the court ruled that Connecticuts current definition, or lack thereof was Constitutional. I have already said, I find the court's reasoning to be dubious at best, but the majority's decision s Many states already have in their laws and/or Constitutions strongly worded definitions of what "public use" means in terms of eminent domain. This decision does not overturn those guidelines. There will be an outcry amongst voters and legislators will listen. You will see in initiative states, ballot issues to strictly define what "public use" is, and I guarantee you the Supreme Court won't overturn those standards. In other states, the legislatures will act to set strict standards. The ruling was actually based, by the way, on another decision in a previous SCOTUS decision written by none other than Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.
Here's an interesting, non-partisan analysis of the decision:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/06/supreme-court-eminent-domain-ruling.php
acludem
ScreamingEagle said:This is an abomination !!!! Now any big business developer with political influence can seize and take away your home or private property in the name of "public use".
If a liberal ever tells you again that they are "against big business" and "for the little guy", shove this issue in their faces!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property
nakedemperor said:No one is for the little guy, liberal or conservative. Under the pro-big business Bush administration the number of lobbyists in Washington has DOUBLED since 2000. That is mind-boggling. Neither side has any legitimate claim to taking the high ground; it seems everyone in a position of power right now is slave to the almighty dollar.
rtwngAvngr said:The liberal judges did this. And all the conservative talk show hosts I heard were outraged. Libs are trying to justify this. Like acludem, what a fraud.
Bullypulpit said:Sorry, but the Supreme Court that made this decision is the same one that put Dubbyuh in office in 2000...And you're whining about them being liberal!?!
June 26, 2005
Accept the Invitation
The strong reaction to the Supreme Court's Kelo decision last week is encouraging.
It's nice to know that millions of fellow citizens have not lost their sense of appropriate righteous indignation about serious risks to their civil rights.
For all the hand-wringing about the potential impact of this eminent domain opinion, however, I think that Justice Stephens's opinion for the 5-4 majority also signaled the best solution to the risk that Kelo will be followed in short order by a wave of new and objectionable takings:
We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. [notes omitted]
All true. Now's the time to add to those existing limitations.
For example, Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control can be the recipient of open space by a bequest, or it can buy the property in a normal transaction, but it can't use eminent domain to convert citizen's property into parkland for the rest of us. My clients at DelDOT can use their eminent domain authority for transportation purposes, but that's the extent of their power to condemn property.
I discussed Delaware's constitutional limits on eminent domain a while ago, citing a 1986 decision that barred the Wilmington Parking Authority from taking a swath of private property for the primary benefit of the Wilmington News-Journal. Wilmington Parking Authority v. Land with Improvements, 521 A.2d 227 (Del. 1986).
As Kelo shows, the ability to use eminent domain to remove blight is where the real risks are; one man's middle-class bungalow can be someone else's eyesore.
The folks who really, really don't like the result in Kelo have an obvious path to obtain the policy choices they prefer. State legislation and, better yet, state constitutional amendments can limit eminent domain powers to the provision of clearly public purposes such as transportation, schools, and prisons. Even in those areas where blight reduction or elimination is accepted as an appropriate use of this extraordinary authority, there should also be some commonly accepted, strict standards that define blight in terms that the community as a whole would accept.
Given the overwhelmingly negative reaction to New London's example, it looks to me that the nation's citizens should accept the Court's invitation to deal with the issue with their state and local legislators.
It certainly provides a useful reminder of the benefits of the federal system. There's nothing about Kelo that says what happened in New London has to happen everywhere else.
UPDATE: See Virginia Postrel's post for an example of the limiting legislation I'm suggesting here.
nakedemperor said:No one is for the little guy, liberal or conservative. Under the pro-big business Bush administration the number of lobbyists in Washington has DOUBLED since 2000. That is mind-boggling. Neither side has any legitimate claim to taking the high ground; it seems everyone in a position of power right now is slave to the almighty dollar.
nakedemperor said:No one is for the little guy, liberal or conservative. Under the pro-big business Bush administration the number of lobbyists in Washington has DOUBLED since 2000. That is mind-boggling. Neither side has any legitimate claim to taking the high ground; it seems everyone in a position of power right now is slave to the almighty dollar.
KarlMarx said:An assault on private property is an assault on freedom....
This court also upheld the Campaign Finance Reform Bill (McCain Feingold) which put restrictions on political speech (if that isn't a First Amendment right, then nothing is).
Some of the justices in the Supreme Court should be put on impeachment charges.
theim said:I agree. This isn't liberal, its Communist.