While we were down, the Supreme Court...

[redguru]

made a decision on the Eminent Domain clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

The public use portion of this clause is what was under contention. Traditionally, this allowed the government to build roads, hospitals, libraries, schools, and other institutions for the public good. However, the Supreme Court in a 1954 case, BERMAN v. PARKER, decided that the condemnation of blighted property was fine from an urban renewal standpoint.

The new case, KELO v. NEW LONDON, lowers the level of what is considered public use to what can increase the tax roles of the jurisdiction. This is a dangerous precedent. Now any small business can be seized to make way for a wal-mart or any home to make way for a new Hotel, just because they provide more revenue.

Discuss...

 

[EnderJE]

PW, where are you now?

 

[Raina]

That was a hot topic on talk radio all week. It's scary to think of them taking property for private developers and the likes.

 

[redguru]

Its pretty dangerous ground. One of the prima fascia causes of the Revolutionary War was England forcing home owners to quarter troops.

 

[thelion2005]

State constitutions can trump this ruling.

What is incredibly odd is ... The liberal Justices voted for it. The conservatives did not.

When did the liberals get in bed with the wealthy and the big contractors? I thought they were all hippies and members of the ACLU. The conservatives tried to step up for the little guy trying to hang on to his house? Interesting.

 

[The Wenis]

the rehnquist court has never put individual rights above anything. i would have been surprised if they had done so here

 

[redguru]

the rehnquist court has never put individual rights above anything. i would have been surprised if they had done so here

Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor all dissented. It was Stevens who wrote the opinion of the majority.

 

[The Wenis]

i said nothing about liberals or conservatives or who voted how. as it sits it's the rehnquist court. before that it was the burger court. the rehnquist court shits on individual rights every year, this year is no different

 

[redguru]

Well, I would normally be in favor of the court siding with a "States Rights" viewpoint. If I feel unfairly targeted by a state law, I can vote with my feet. My land, however, is inherently, not very mobile.

One of the most basic tenets of "common law" is "My Home is My Castle". One of the residents of New London whose property has been condemned is Wilhelmina Dery, She has lived in that same house her entire 87 years. Now Pfizer will own the property in the hopes that it will bring in people of a higher economic condition, hardly within the principles of the normal liberal train of thought, I would believe.

 

[The Wenis]

you're right. "public use" in this case has been stretched so far it snapped. but the supreme court stopped deciding cases based solely on the law a long time ago. i'm one of the many lawyers who thinks the best place for for the supreme court is 6 feet under