…since Kelo:
I’m glad to see all this local patchwork to fix it, but it seems like this might be ripe for a constitutional amendment, given how unpopular it was. Of course, as the video notes, it’s popular with politicians. On the other hand, if it was that popular, it would have been a lot harder to make all the local progress against it. If every state that has either changed state law or amended their constitutions to increase citizens’ rights against rapacious local governments would ratify a federal amendment, it would have a lot of margin for passage.
What good would a federal amendment be? Let the states handle it (as they are).
What good is any federal amendment? Federal amendments are remedies to bad SCOTUS decisions.
Okay, but if the state changes its law AFTER the Kelo decision, doesn’t that negate the effect of Kelo in that state? In other words, it should never get past the state courts at that point.
I’m for it if it’s necessary to enforce the new state laws, but if it isn’t necessary I’d just as soon keep the feds out of state business.
So, anyone want to buy a house in New London? Didn’t think so.
txhsdad Says:
June 23rd, 2010 at 8:19 am
What good would a federal amendment be? Let the states handle it (as they are).
Because:
1) This nation was founded on constitutionally property rights, which the SCOTUS had been chipping away at for decades. With the Kelo decision, five people have all but gutted the property rights of 300 million people.
2) It seems like only a few states have changed their own constitutions to prevent eminent domain abuse. Most have not.
3) The gov’t NO LONGER has to prove that the property taking will result in public works project (like a bridge, road, school, etc)
4) The gov’t NO LONGER has to prove that the property taking will result in the redevelopment of a blighted area.
5) For the most corrupt states (NJ, NY, CT, etc), the Kelo decision handed the creeps in state and local government an incredible tool to takes a person’s property on a nearly “at will” basis. All the local gov’t has to prove is that the new owner of the property (to whom they will be transferring it) will provide much greater tax revenue than the current owner.
I happen to be a believer in states rights. However, in this case it was a few federal gov’t employees that gutted property rights in the U.S. Constitution. it seems to me that an amendment is needed to restore them.
I was the guy who organized the effort here in New Hampshire to eminent domain the vacation estates of supreme court justices Souter and Breyer, who were two of the Kelo Five. Souter, a republican, and Breyer, a democrat, served our purposes in quickly mobilizing their respective parties to oppose our street theater as if it were a real effort, to protect their crony friends on the US Supreme Court (since they were not interested in protecting the property of we average citizens until that point), and they adopted and passed my proposed State Constitutional Amendment to restrict eminent domain here. My amendment then passed the voters at election by a 75% victory.
The Institute for Justice did a great job representing Ms. Kelo in her case, and the plight of residents of New London, and the resulting failure of the development project, served as an object lesson to people across the country. I am proud to have been a part of this effort.
The takings clause of the Constitution addresses the issue very well.
Unlike the federal government, which, theoretically, may exercise only its enumerated powers; states have plenary power. That means they can do any damn thing they want as long as they don’t violate the Constitution.
I don’t agree with what New London was doing but New London only did what they were allowed to do according to Connecticut state law. The SCOTUS affirmed that by saying that Kelo got her due process and her just compensation under Connecticut state law.
My view of it is, fine; don’t buy property in Connecticut if you don’t like that. Or change the law in Connecticut if you don’t like that.
Just don’t suggest any more federal laws or amendments regulating what the states may do. There is nothing in Article 1, Section 8 that allows Congress to dictate state law or Article 3 that gives the federal courts similar power. Why would you want to make any amendment to the constitution that might even give them any inkling of such authority.
Don’t look to the federal government for a solution to your local problem. I would rather you change your own state constitution or move if you don’t like the law in your state.
Jardinero1,
You make a lot of good points. I appreciate your wish to step lightly to prevent an already power mad, centralized gov’t from growing more powerful. However, the continuous watering down of the definition of private property comes directly from the broadening interpretation of “public use” in the 5th Amendment’s Takings clause.
That trend is troubling to me. And I don’t see it necessarily increasing state and local power at the expense of the federal gov’t. My fear is that the precedents it sets may increase the power of state, local, AND federal governments, at the expense of individual liberty.
IMHO Kelo seemed to be a further encroachment upon private property rights of the individual. And without the right to private property, how exactly is an individual different from a serf?
Interesting reaction to Kelo by Utah this year. State legislature passed legislation which was signed by the governor allowing the state to condemn any / all federal land in the state and take it for state uses. The caveat was that the state could get more economic use out of it than the feds – which uses the Kelo decision as its vehicle. Clinton’s grab of land over a superb coal deposit in southern Utah to create the Grand Staircase – Escalante National Monument has galled Utah for nearly 15 years.
When you start seeing the western states starting to grab back federal lands illegally taken from the state after the statehood compact was signed, congress will get off its collective backsides and do something about Kelo. My guess is more and more of the states will start passing legislation to do this in the not so distant future.
State legislature passed legislation which was signed by the governor allowing the state to condemn any / all federal land in the state and take it for state uses.
That’s great! Maybe Kelo isn’t so bad after all. Have they actually used it to any useful effect (e.g., grabbing back part of Escalante)? That would drive this administration nuts. Not to mention the Riadys… 😉
LOL thats an application I had not considered but would be even more entertaining than going after supreme court justices homes.
Haven’t heard any action by Utah yet. Expect it is in process.
Actually, Mr. Lorrey you could help by getting this sort of legislation passed in NH. I do expect you have National Forests among other federally-owned things up there. The more states east of the Mississippi that can pass and start acting on this idea would take the pressure off the western states and turn the issue into a national one rather than a regional one.
I hope to encourage something like this to start moving thru the Alaska legislature this next session. There has been some interest.