You no longer own your home

The Supreme Court proves once again that it is out of control.  They have taken away your right to own land.  Think I'm exaggerating?  Have you read their decision in Kelo et al v. City of New London?

Let's think about this...

A city has the right to seize property for private, not public, development, if that development serves a "public purpose."  What is a "public purpose?"  Well, if the resulting development brings in higher property tax revenues, that sounds like a "public purpose."

What does this mean?

Let's say you and your neighbors have nice, large lots, with modest homes built thereupon.  Now let's say a private real estate developer brings the city a plan to tear down the homes in your neighborhood, subdivide the large lots, and build twice as many new, larger homes.  The difference in potential property tax revenue is tremendous.  There is now nothing to stop the city from seizing your homes, bulldozing your memories, and redistributing the land to the highest bidders.

This is pure communism.

Think I'm kidding?

What does the government have to give you in return?  According to the 5th Amendment, which is applied to the States through the 14th Amendment, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

How do you define "just compensation?"  Is it fair market value?  Or is it whatever the legislature, the governor, the city council, or some other body deems is fair under the circumstances?  What if you are a wealthy person, and the city wants to take your land to build a dozen HUD homes for low-income families?  Some socialist politicians might say it is "fair and just" that a privileged person like you should have to give up your land for far less than market value, because you are wealthy and can take the loss.  It is "fair and just" that poor families be given the chance to have their own homes.

Think that is out of line?

The only buffer between your land and public seizure is whatever arbitrary dollar amount the governing body thinks is "just compensation."

Do you trust your government to tell you what your land is worth to you?

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they didn't even envision the government seizing your property.  The takings clause appears in an Amendment, after the fact, to recognize that the government may need, under certain circumstances, to take some land for such uses as roads, uses that serve the public good.  And the Founders wanted to ensure that the government couldn't just take land.  They added that compensation clause, to ensure that government was checked, that government had to A) really need the land and B) be prepared to pay the landowner just compensation for his loss.  The founders never, never envisioned things like shopping malls, low-income housing, private office buildings and the like as "public use."  And the Constitution doesn't mention "private use" takings.  The government of the United States is a government of enumerated powers.  The government can only do to you what the Constitution provides.  Only "public use" takings are allowed by the Constitution.

Until now.

We have a runaway judiciary.  There is no check on the Supreme Court.  The President is supposed to have the power to appoint new judges, but the Senate democRats, the losing party, are trying to take that away.

Today's decision is a 5-4 split.  Two of the four who wanted to defend your rights, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, are very close to retirement.  One of the five who elected to take away your rights, Justice John Paul Stevens, the oldest member of the court, is also expected to retire very soon.  If the President can appoint three new justices, the balance of power will shift, and the new court can begin to undo the injustices of the previous generation.

We must all band together and support President Bush when the inevitable Supreme Court retirements come in the very near future.  The President needs to be able to appoint justices who will use the Constitution as their source of law.

Your right to own your land depends on it.

RELATED:

Columnist Michelle Malkin, Your home is not your castle:

The real frauds are bleeding-heart liberal poseurs who decry Big Business--except when they're conspiring with them in the name of "community redevelopment" and "blight eradication."

NewsMax Magazine, War Begins on Rehnquist Replacement:

With Washington abuzz over talk that Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist will retire as early as next week, the liberal assault at his likely successor, Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has begun.

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds, A man's home is somebody else's piggy bank:

It used to be that tax revenues were to be spent promoting the public good. Now, apparently, they're a public good in and of themselves.

More from Glenn.  And more.

Comments

[JustaDog]

Excellent post! So much for the security of ones' own home huh? Hope that trash gets reversed soon.

[Gullyborg]

not gonna happen any time soon.

even if Bush appoints 3 new justices, it will take years, many years, to get a suitable case all the way up for SCOTUS review. and who knows what might happen in the meantime? we might end up putting someone who looks conservative, like AG Gonzales, on the SC, only to have him "evolve" into a more liberal Souter-like justice.

Or, we might get a new breed of judges who put stare decisis above all else--not necessarily a bad thing, either, as it is good to have consistency in the law.

We may well get a challenge 10 years down the road, only to have it upheld.

No, the only real solultion, I fear, is to make up a list of ALL the things the court has gotten wrong over the years, and call for a Constitutional Convention. We need to spell out what things like "public use" and "just compensation" actually mean, rather than rely on 9 people with no accountability to define them for us.

[jack ginger]

if the supreme court says a local govt can take my land under eminent domain (5th amendment), i say i can take the life of the local sheriff who tries to evict me under posse comitatus 92nd amendment), because if they want my land there first gonna have to pry my gun from my cold dead hand

[jack ginger]

2nd amendment, not 92nd amendment