Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (1324)	6/23/2005 10:49:06 AM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

I've always found the eminent domain thing to be troubling.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (1324)	6/24/2005 2:52:41 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

I hope this will go down as one of the worst rulings of the century. If not. we are in for a terrible slide into UnConstitutionality. Cities have been doing this for some time. I recall reading about a church in LA They owned a city block or two, and WalMart wanted it. California judges ruled for the curch. I read in a newspaper about a hotel developer that wanted to develop near a university, and wanted the city to take the land from private citizens so the developer could buy it at a bargain. We need some Strict Constitutional Judges on the court.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (1324)	6/29/2005 1:20:11 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Oh Madison, Where Art Thou? By: J. David Breemer Phone: (916) 419-7111 In 1782, James Madison wrote: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his.” Madison was hardly alone in these views. The other Framers of this nation also held private property rights in such reverence that they too believed that government was legitimate and so, worth instituting, only to the extent that it actively protected private property. In just the last week, property rights were pummeled not once, but twice, by the U.S. Supreme Court, which closed its eyes to the history and tradition of our country and embraced a view that squarely puts government ahead of the governed. Private Property – The Most Fundamental Right The Framers put such stock in private property because they believed that all other personal liberties depended on security in property. As Virginian Arthur Lee reminded his fellow colonials on the eve of the Revolution, “the right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty.” Upon the signing of the Constitution, John Adams reiterated that the Framers’ were driven by the belief that “[p]roperty must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” When Madison drafted the Bill of Rights to make clear that individual freedoms trumped even the federal government’s new powers, he included provisions specifically protecting private property. Chief among these is the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” For more than a century and a half after the Constitution’s adoption, the United States Supreme Court followed in the footsteps of the Framers when it came to respecting and preserving private property. Like the Framers, the early Court considered it self-evident that “in any society the fullness and sufficiency of the securities which surround the individual in the use and enjoyment of his property constitute one of the most certain tests of the character and value of the government.” The Court vigorously enforced the takings clause, holding that the government could only take property when it was actually put to use by the public, requiring compensation for excessive regulatory intrusions, and considering disputes arising under the takings clause worthy of at least the same federal judicial attention as disputes arising under other Constitutional provisions. Unfortunately, today’s Supreme Court is cut from a far different cloth. This was made clear in two decisions dealing with the scope of the takings clause. In a decision last week involving homeowners in New London, Conn., the Court held government may confiscate perfectly good and occupied homes simply because it wants to give the property to new private owners who promise to make the property more valuable and so, put more tax dollars in the government coffer. (Kelo v. City of New London) To do so, the Court effectively rewrote Madison’s takings clause, replacing the words “for public use” — designed to allowing takings only when that property was for actual use by the public — with the phrase “public purpose,” which allows takings that benefit private parties and the “ever evolving needs of society.” In a second decision regarding property in San Francisco, the Court held that individuals may no longer sue in federal courts to stop illegitimate takings (San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco). According to the decision, those trying to prevent state and city governments from taking their property may not appeal to the federal courts for protection, instead must go hat in hand to the state’s own courts. Unlike those claiming violations of free speech rights, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or any other constitutional liberty, those seeking to protect their property are shut out of federal courthouses. For the coup de grace, the Court made it harder to establish a right to just compensation under the Takings Clause when the government engages in excessive regulation of property. Nothing in the Court’s precedent or in the text of the Takings Clause mandated these decisions. In fact, in every case, such considerations supported the opposite results, results that protected, rather than denigrated private property rights. The only plausible reason for the Court’s choice to cut back on private property right is that it simply does not believe that such rights have an important role in checking government power and preserving individual liberty. In fact, the Court’s decisions are disturbingly candid about its desire to make private property subservient to the whim of government decision-making. This deferential view of the government’s power to define and regulate property without meaningful constitutional restraint has little in common with the understanding of the Framers. Judging from this term’s decisions, one might say the Supreme Court has more in common with Lenin, when it comes to private property, than it does with Madison. And Madison’s ideological heirs have legitimate cause to wonder if the Framers made a mistake in creating a powerful and autonomous judicial branch. J. David Breemer is a PLF Attorney. He may be reached at jdb@pacificlegal.org. pacificlegal.org