I don't think it has a prayer. I did, however, come up with a variation on that theme that might. But even my idea is tongue in cheek, and probably would not work.
Publicizing this decision also made many Americans aware of how much power the state has, and a lot of them are angry about it. The result may be - interesting.
Fred: I think rent control has proven to be highly destructive, and to help the rich at the expense of the poor (i.e. the exact opposite of its intention). However, I see it as a local matter; I don't see where there's a Constitutional impediment. I suppose you could argue that it's property-seizure but I think that argument would be pretty weak.
Mary: It would be interesting to see someone start a drive for a Constitutional amendment to try to change this. That would seem like an obvious solution if that many people are upset by it.
My bet is that it's not possible because no matter how you phrase such an amendment you'll wind up faced with the fact that government does have a legitimate need to take property sometimes, and you'll wind up with an amendment saying, basically, they can't do it without due process or just compensation--which is what the Constitution already says.
And if you tried to just say they can't take the property and give it to a private developer, the workaround is that they'd simply sieze the property, then lease it out.
So far as I can see--and I've said this before--the only protection here really is the democratic process.
Government utilizing the seize &lease option as you argue I think would present a specious premise. Previous examples notwithstanding, (railroads, etc.) if government were to exercise such an option, it must first identify specifically why the eminent domain must take place. Is the newly acquired property destined for a museum, park, road, etc. or is it for another private enterprise?
Firstly, if the stated purpose of the land in question is for the former, no harm done to the 5th however, if the stated purpose is for the latter, the 5th and even the 14th are in jeopardy (14th - ... "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")
OK, so you may argue that due process of law has taken place therefore that person may be deprived. Not so fast as the landowner has not broken any laws by expressing the desire to remain on the property. Due process of law only begins AFTER such individual is found guilty of breaking a law which in this case does not exist.
Other problems arise from individuals using government to extort property from another individual. Extortion is only legal if it is directly by and for government not if the government is acting as a real estate broker. If government takes land, it first becomes property of the people. If the land is to be resold, it must do so by public auction to allow for the highest possible price of the property.
To suggest that the democratic process is the only protection is erroneous. The problem is one of leverage. The individual landowner has little or no leverage over the guys playing golf with the mayor on a regular basis. To make things more tilted away from the landowner, many cities are quasi-legal institutions themselves giving a great deal of power to city managers who are hired not elected.
With elections every four years (about 6 times longer than the average voter's memory) even if the landowner was removed and compensated, he/she likely won't be able to purchase in the same voting district (i.e. San Fran, etc.) in order to "throw the bum out that threw him out." With this kind of passive aggression, we would still be under a monarchy.
This case clearly provides legal precedent and therefore does grease the wheels for similar odious takings around the country not merely a logical slippery slope fallacy as you have suggested.
Landmark SCOTUS cases have move the football further faster than mere legislation.
Bah. Government has been taking people's property for all variety of purposes since the founding of this Republic, and well before that too. The Constitution explicitely says they can do this so long as due process is granted and just compensation is given--and what that usually means these days is the market value of the home, plus extra, plus relocation expenses.
And historically it was not just for a CRIME, but also for public purposes.
"Public purposes" usually is going to mean whatever the locally elected officials say it is and so long as they provide a reasonable process for objection, public hearings, court hearings, etc.
I again suggest: if you think you can fix this, why not propose a Constitutional amendment? I merely suggest--again--that you cannot come up with wording on such an amendment which would be any different at all from what we have now, unless you plan on doing away with eminent domain completely.
The "anger management" link contains this statement:
"Once again, this is a clear indication of why to grant an exception to a principle is to destroy the principle: once you agree that property rights may be violated by the government, no matter the reason, you reject the principle of property rights as such."
Absurd. This is like saying "once you agree that speech rights may be violated by the government, no matter the reason, you reject the principle of speech rights as such." So if I allow the government to prosecute you for revealing state secrets--thus impinging your right of free speech--this means there is no free speech?
I note once again: for the entire history of this Republic, the government has been taking property for various purposes. It does so via due process and compensation. The founders wanted due process and fair compensation.
If that's communism then most of the founders were communists.
Dean, you have missed my entire argument. Indeed the government has been taking the people's property for "public use" for many moons which is explicitly stated in the Article 5 of the Constitution.
What is not in the same Article is the phrases "public benefit" (i.e. property taxes are more important than neighborhoods or quantity versus quality) or "public purpose" as you argue. This is not a matter of simple literal interpretation or semantics. The phrase "public use" means that government and government only should use the property.
Now before you restate your argument of railroads coming through, or phone lines having right-of-way through the people's property, these are infrastructure projects that require a linear pattern of property acquisition. The proposed New London project does not.
See it for yourself on maps.google. Enter "goshen st, new london, ct" then zoom twice, then hit satellite. The dirt is the portion of the parcel the portion of the neighborhood that has already been leveled. The holdout property owners are towards the on the bottom with the Kelos living on East Street. Now zoom out once or twice and notice all of the woods just a couple of miles to the southwest. Wouldn't it be better to bulldoze trees than people's homes? The city could just as easily develop this uninhabited land despite its location away from the water. Long standing neighborhoods should not be destroyed if other viable alternatives are available.
"'Public purposes' usually is going to mean whatever the locally elected officials say it is and so long as they provide a reasonable process for objection, public hearings, court hearings, etc."
This is an incredibly naive statement. Certainly you have seen the exasperation on the people's faces at any city hall as they dutifully speak for their allotted 3 minutes while officials pretend to listen. They have already been convinced by experts that have spent hundreds of hours packaging an appropriate justification for such a taking.
Sure, private to private takings have happened many times in our past which was wrong. Only now the SCOTUS said it is OK to do this.
Your continued suggestion that the only way to "fix" this is a Consitutional amendment falls flat in the face of our history. Reread Plessy then look at the violence and injustice that resulted for the following 60 years afterwards.
Then reread Brown. It is not unreasonable nor paranoid to assume similar consequences.
"The phrase "public use" means that government and government only should use the property.
Now before you restate your argument of railroads coming through, or phone lines having right-of-way through the people's property, these are infrastructure projects that require a linear pattern of property acquisition. The proposed New London project does not."
OK, forget the railroad. We'll knock down Souter's home to put up a public library! Or a public parking garage! Hey, lots of places have shortages of parking spaces! Or, if I understand correctly, we CAN put a railroad through Souter's home if we do also do it to all his neighbors. Fine by me!
What you're getting at is that the New London project sucks, which is probably true, but it doesn't suck because it involves a private company. The city could put up a public building and lease space to private companies at high rates and it would suck just as much, although it would be "public use".
Dean wrote:
"If that's communism then most of the founders were communists."
The very fact that the Founding Fathers were not Communists, nor New Deal liberals, proves that they would have opposed this decision. Point 3 of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is: "abolition of all right of inheritance." Today's Supreme Court has just done exactly that.
"Communists and Liberals almost always use flawless logic, but the conclusions are false because the logic is based on a plausible but false premise.
"How in the world can you discuss Communism intelligently if you accept the premise that Communism is nationalistic and not international? How can you discuss the evils of socialism if you accept the premise that a little bit of socialism is all right? The Liberal tries to put forward the premise that law enforcement, our local fire department, sewage, etc., is socialism..... Hogwash. These are programs of local government that are geared to protect the health and property of the individual. A person who hold the premise that a police force is socialism doesn't understand the word 'socialism.' Socialism means government ownership, direction, control, and statism, as opposed to individual will. The police are people (a group of individuals) who are hired by the community to protect us from those who assault our private property. When people directly or indirectly authorize government to take from some and give to others, then they have socialism.
"Look for the false premise.... It is there in practically all of the socialist cliches."
-H. L. "Bill" Richardson, "Double Standards and False Premises", Slightly To the Right!
Where do you come down on Rent control? I see it as an abuse of eminent domain. Interesting New Yorker article and my thoughs on it here:
http://www.fredschoeneman.com/archives/001045.html
f
It's true, cities have been using their rights of emiment domain to declare perfectly viable homes 'blighted' for years. The Supreme court decision just legalized the whole process and made it easier.
Publicizing this decision also made many Americans aware of how much power the state has, and a lot of them are angry about it. The result may be - interesting.
It could carry huge momentum into the 2006 elections.
Mary: It would be interesting to see someone start a drive for a Constitutional amendment to try to change this. That would seem like an obvious solution if that many people are upset by it.
My bet is that it's not possible because no matter how you phrase such an amendment you'll wind up faced with the fact that government does have a legitimate need to take property sometimes, and you'll wind up with an amendment saying, basically, they can't do it without due process or just compensation--which is what the Constitution already says.
And if you tried to just say they can't take the property and give it to a private developer, the workaround is that they'd simply sieze the property, then lease it out.
So far as I can see--and I've said this before--the only protection here really is the democratic process.
Firstly, if the stated purpose of the land in question is for the former, no harm done to the 5th however, if the stated purpose is for the latter, the 5th and even the 14th are in jeopardy (14th - ... "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")
OK, so you may argue that due process of law has taken place therefore that person may be deprived. Not so fast as the landowner has not broken any laws by expressing the desire to remain on the property. Due process of law only begins AFTER such individual is found guilty of breaking a law which in this case does not exist.
Other problems arise from individuals using government to extort property from another individual. Extortion is only legal if it is directly by and for government not if the government is acting as a real estate broker. If government takes land, it first becomes property of the people. If the land is to be resold, it must do so by public auction to allow for the highest possible price of the property.
To suggest that the democratic process is the only protection is erroneous. The problem is one of leverage. The individual landowner has little or no leverage over the guys playing golf with the mayor on a regular basis. To make things more tilted away from the landowner, many cities are quasi-legal institutions themselves giving a great deal of power to city managers who are hired not elected.
With elections every four years (about 6 times longer than the average voter's memory) even if the landowner was removed and compensated, he/she likely won't be able to purchase in the same voting district (i.e. San Fran, etc.) in order to "throw the bum out that threw him out." With this kind of passive aggression, we would still be under a monarchy.
This case clearly provides legal precedent and therefore does grease the wheels for similar odious takings around the country not merely a logical slippery slope fallacy as you have suggested.
Landmark SCOTUS cases have move the football further faster than mere legislation.
Bah. Government has been taking people's property for all variety of purposes since the founding of this Republic, and well before that too. The Constitution explicitely says they can do this so long as due process is granted and just compensation is given--and what that usually means these days is the market value of the home, plus extra, plus relocation expenses.
And historically it was not just for a CRIME, but also for public purposes.
"Public purposes" usually is going to mean whatever the locally elected officials say it is and so long as they provide a reasonable process for objection, public hearings, court hearings, etc.
I again suggest: if you think you can fix this, why not propose a Constitutional amendment? I merely suggest--again--that you cannot come up with wording on such an amendment which would be any different at all from what we have now, unless you plan on doing away with eminent domain completely.
AXE ME again what I think about Communism.
"Once again, this is a clear indication of why to grant an exception to a principle is to destroy the principle: once you agree that property rights may be violated by the government, no matter the reason, you reject the principle of property rights as such."
Absurd. This is like saying "once you agree that speech rights may be violated by the government, no matter the reason, you reject the principle of speech rights as such." So if I allow the government to prosecute you for revealing state secrets--thus impinging your right of free speech--this means there is no free speech?
I note once again: for the entire history of this Republic, the government has been taking property for various purposes. It does so via due process and compensation. The founders wanted due process and fair compensation.
If that's communism then most of the founders were communists.
What is not in the same Article is the phrases "public benefit" (i.e. property taxes are more important than neighborhoods or quantity versus quality) or "public purpose" as you argue. This is not a matter of simple literal interpretation or semantics. The phrase "public use" means that government and government only should use the property.
Now before you restate your argument of railroads coming through, or phone lines having right-of-way through the people's property, these are infrastructure projects that require a linear pattern of property acquisition. The proposed New London project does not.
See it for yourself on maps.google. Enter "goshen st, new london, ct" then zoom twice, then hit satellite. The dirt is the portion of the parcel the portion of the neighborhood that has already been leveled. The holdout property owners are towards the on the bottom with the Kelos living on East Street. Now zoom out once or twice and notice all of the woods just a couple of miles to the southwest. Wouldn't it be better to bulldoze trees than people's homes? The city could just as easily develop this uninhabited land despite its location away from the water. Long standing neighborhoods should not be destroyed if other viable alternatives are available.
"'Public purposes' usually is going to mean whatever the locally elected officials say it is and so long as they provide a reasonable process for objection, public hearings, court hearings, etc."
This is an incredibly naive statement. Certainly you have seen the exasperation on the people's faces at any city hall as they dutifully speak for their allotted 3 minutes while officials pretend to listen. They have already been convinced by experts that have spent hundreds of hours packaging an appropriate justification for such a taking.
Sure, private to private takings have happened many times in our past which was wrong. Only now the SCOTUS said it is OK to do this.
Your continued suggestion that the only way to "fix" this is a Consitutional amendment falls flat in the face of our history. Reread Plessy then look at the violence and injustice that resulted for the following 60 years afterwards.
Then reread Brown. It is not unreasonable nor paranoid to assume similar consequences.
Now before you restate your argument of railroads coming through, or phone lines having right-of-way through the people's property, these are infrastructure projects that require a linear pattern of property acquisition. The proposed New London project does not."
OK, forget the railroad. We'll knock down Souter's home to put up a public library! Or a public parking garage! Hey, lots of places have shortages of parking spaces! Or, if I understand correctly, we CAN put a railroad through Souter's home if we do also do it to all his neighbors. Fine by me!
What you're getting at is that the New London project sucks, which is probably true, but it doesn't suck because it involves a private company. The city could put up a public building and lease space to private companies at high rates and it would suck just as much, although it would be "public use".
"If that's communism then most of the founders were communists."
The very fact that the Founding Fathers were not Communists, nor New Deal liberals, proves that they would have opposed this decision. Point 3 of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is: "abolition of all right of inheritance." Today's Supreme Court has just done exactly that.
"Communists and Liberals almost always use flawless logic, but the conclusions are false because the logic is based on a plausible but false premise.
"How in the world can you discuss Communism intelligently if you accept the premise that Communism is nationalistic and not international? How can you discuss the evils of socialism if you accept the premise that a little bit of socialism is all right? The Liberal tries to put forward the premise that law enforcement, our local fire department, sewage, etc., is socialism..... Hogwash. These are programs of local government that are geared to protect the health and property of the individual. A person who hold the premise that a police force is socialism doesn't understand the word 'socialism.' Socialism means government ownership, direction, control, and statism, as opposed to individual will. The police are people (a group of individuals) who are hired by the community to protect us from those who assault our private property. When people directly or indirectly authorize government to take from some and give to others, then they have socialism.
"Look for the false premise.... It is there in practically all of the socialist cliches."
-H. L. "Bill" Richardson, "Double Standards and False Premises", Slightly To the Right!