Eminent Domain Equals Imminent Disaster
By Ron Marr (07/01/05)
The day of June 23rd holds great significance in American history. On June 23rd, 1776, the Continental Congress held their first vote on the Declaration of Independence. On June 23rd, 1863, Robert E. Lee's northward advance was stopped at the Battle of Gettysburg. On June 23rd, 1898, Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders made their legendary charge up San Juan Hill.
And on June 23rd, 2005, The United States Supreme Court tossed out the Constitution and determined that Americans do not hold title to their own property. The five leftist members of the court (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) continued their frontal assault on the rights of the individual, carving in stone their dedication to the formation of the type of feckless, communal society we more frequently associate with the salad days of the former Soviet Union. In the case of "Susette Kelo versus the City of New London, (CT)," this gang of five decided your property can be condemned and stolen by any deep-pocketed developer with the desire to slap up a strip mall and the clout to bribe a politician.
The ownership of private property has always been considered one of the bedrock convictions of America; it is one of the things (along with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the freedom to bear arms and the rest of the bill of rights) that sets us apart from the totalitarianism of the dictatorial regime. However, the liberal judges of the Supreme Court do not care about interpreting the Constitution. They care about re-making our culture in ways that fit their social Darwinist fantasies. They are activists obsessed with using the bench to create those laws that Congress forbids.
There is nothing vague about the Fifth Amendment. Though most know of this amendment only in terms of the right to avoid self-incrimination (not surprising, in this age when the Constitution is prohibited from the schools by left-leaning educators) it is also the single most important protection we have regarding private property ownership. Anyone that can read can easily interpret the last sentence of the amendment.
"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."
There it is. No private property can be taken for PUBLIC use without just compensation. The authors of the Constitution, over and over, wrote of the importance of private property ownership. Never in their wildest dreams did they envision the highest court of the land appropriating private property and handing it to another private individual or company. That was what happened in feudal Europe. That was what happened under a monarchy, where the hereditary leader owned all.
Which, apparently, is the very system preferred by over half of the Supreme Court. In their eyes, the government IS a monarchy that has supreme power to treat all land, all possessions and the very lives of all citizens as their personal playthings.
Kelo versus New London found that snatching private property for economic development was just as important as taking it for a school, park, highway or sewer system. If it increases taxes and provides jobs, they said, then it is in the public good. We should consider what this means. If you own property on a river or near a beach, would not your home better serve the public good as a resort or hotel? If you have a small, family farm, would not the public good be better served if it was owned an managed by a corporate giant that created jobs and increased efficiency? Does your church own property? If so, holding tax exempt status as it does, wouldn't that parcel better contribute to the public good if it was used for a convenience store or strip joint? After all, such a move creates jobs and adds to the tax base.
The secondary danger here, is that determination of public good and eminent domain actions will be made by local government officials. The floodgates have just opened for a whole new realm of bribery and corruption. I have yet to live in an area where, at one time or another, either a city or county official has not been convicted of absconding with public funds. Just what do you think a less than ethical civil seervant will do when offered a king's ransom by the would be developer of a multi-million dollar shopping mall? Many elected officials are beyond reproach, but in infinite scenarios it will only require one bad apple to evict you from your home.
The primary danger, is that the Supreme Court has effectively stated that the Constitution is no longer valid.
If the Fifth Amendment can be thrown out with the stroke of a pen, why not all the rest?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
