The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of municipal government in Kelo vs. City of New London. Bloggers across the political spectrum are commenting although I have yet to come upon any enthusiastic support of the winning side. This may be a good moment for everyone to actually read the Fifth Amendment and decide if this brief passage truly reflects what we believe about our society.
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.The left is having problems with the reality this decision gives government new power to seize property of the poor for the direct benefit of corporations, and indirect benefit of the total population. The right understands correctly this decision expands the seizure power of government by setting the standard of individual property protection so low that it effectively ceases to be a barrier. When this case was accepted by the Supreme Court in February I wrote the following analysis.
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.
"The troubling aspect of this case is that normally when private land is taken under the power of eminent domain, the ownership of the land transfers to the public as represented by the government. Applied fairly this seizure power provides things like public roads and city parks. In this instance, which is not unique, eminent domain is being used to transfer the ownership rights from one private party to another private party, with the hope that the new private owners will make the land available for public use.So now the Supreme Court has determined that it is constitutional for government to change the ownership of private property as long as they justify the seizure and transfer as having some form of public use. In other words, individual property owners have no legitimate defense against any type of seizure that a majority desires. This may be a good time to ask that the entire Supreme Court resign in total. They no longer reason with any demonstrable consistency of logic or conviction. It will be politically bloody but we should just pick a brand new Supreme Court, nine brand new judges and let them clean up this mess.
At the heart of the dispute is what the “public use” phrase in the 5th Amendment means. Privately owned and open to the public, for example retail shops and restaurants, is a classic business model that can be considered public use of land. This is very different from publicly owned and used by the public such as a community swimming pool. It is meaningless to use the term “public use” without direct reference to the property being used.
In this case the city government believes the greater good of the community will be served by seizing private homes for the benefit of a private organization. If the amount of revenue a government can receive from a property is the determining factor in exercising the right of eminent domain, then the whole concept of private property is mute. If the government can legitimately transfer ownership rights between private parties based on the highest bidder, then there is no meaningful right of private ownership, only a right to fair compensation as determined by the government."
