High Court Expands Reach of Eminent Domain
WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court (search) ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The usual jackasses.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
This is un-American. Men died to protect our rights as individuals and now 5 lawyers, 5 social engineers, have erased a huge part of what America stands for.
I hope that Mr. Winkle and all property owners are willing to stand up to this tyranny. This is a fight that we must take on if America, as intended, is to survive. Obviously the same media who cheers for the hippie who chains himself to a tree will sneer at a working American who stands in the way of a bulldozer about to raze his house. The bloodsucking citcommissionersrs whose salary is paid for by our work will demand that we relent our property so that they may have more money for needle exchange programs, public artwork, free abortions and benefits for illegal aliens.
Is that what the founders of this great country intended? Are we so apathetic that we would allow government elites to decide what constitutes "public good?" We know what government thinks is "good" for the public: more power, more influence, more interference, more functions, more involvement, more programs, more more more more!
Who decides what is good for you? Will you let commissionon tell you that there is a better use for your property? Will you let commissionon or a judge decide what "just compensation" for your property is? Maybe the commission thinks the public would be better served if you local church was an abortion clinic. Maybe they think the public would be better served if the local gun range was an art gallery.
This is a turning point for America and we should all be outraged.
No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property
From my cold, dead hands.
On a completely unrelated note, I highly recommend http://www.gunbroker.com/ for all your armed resistance needs.