Liberty
Matters News Service
June 30,
2005
U.S. Supreme Court Abolishes Property Rights
The U. S. Supreme Court, Thursday, told a waiting nation that private property ownership means nothing. In Kelo v. New London, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled on the side of the City of New London, Connecticut and against the homeowners who argued the City overstepped its authority when it condemned their homes to make way for buildings and businesses that would generate more money. "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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote for the minority saying; "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." "Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities," Justice ClarenceThomas wrote. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with the minority.
Cato Scholars Condemn Private Property
Reaction to Kelo Decision Prompts Action
The high court's shocking decision sent legislators scrambling to amend their constitutions to provide protection for private property owners who can no longer count on the Constitutional safeguards of the Fifth Amendment. Texas Rep. Frank Corte of San Antonio is among the first to try to soften the effects of Kelo by placing an amendment to the Texas Constitution on the November ballot that would limit local governments' power to use eminent domain to line their pockets. The amendment won't have a chance unless Governor Perry agrees to add the measure to the special session agenda. So far, Perry says he won't approve the request until lawmakers fix the school funding problem and work out tax reforms. Perry is planning another run for governor in 2008. U. S. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, took to the Senate floor Monday to introduce the "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005." Sen. Cornyn said; "The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders. The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because … the Court has effectively ... delete[d] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and thereby refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution."
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." --John Adams.
Corte Leads Change for Landowners Rights
The Lost Liberty Hotel
Immediately following the decision of the Socialist Supremes to turn over private property to the highest bidder, a developer sent a proposal to Chip Meany, code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire, to initiate the process of evicting Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter from his home at 34 Cilley Hill Road to make way for a new hotel. The building, according to Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, would generate much more money for Weare's city coffers than the present private habitation of Judge Souter. This proposal would be completely in keeping with the high court's ruling; Judge Souter voted with the majority to abolish private property rights, so he surely would have no objection to packing his plunder to make way for a more public "beneficial" use of his property. Mr. Clements says his proposal is no joke. "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development." The proposed hotel will be named "The Lost Liberty Hotel" to remind everyone of the true meaning of the Kelo v New London decision. There will be an on-site cafe, aptly named "Just Desserts" in honor of Judge Souter. A planned museum will feature a permanent exhibit of the progressive loss of freedom in America over the last two hundred fifty years. Mr. Clements said Judge Souter's home must be replaced with a commercial money-generating venture that will stand as a beacon to Judge Souter and his Supreme Court comrades who were unable to read and understand the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America."Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. ...[T]hat alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." --James Madison
Hotel Where Supreme Court Justice Home Stands