An article on the BBC News website speaks about the efforts of a group of protestors to make a claim to US Supreme Court just David Souter’s house in an attempt to, I guess, show him that his support for the ruling on eminent domain is a bad thing.
It seems the activists in question are attempting to make a claim on his property so that they can build a hotel in its place. Their claim is based on the most recent US Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent domain, which from what I understand is that the government can seize privately owned land to be resold for commercial use, when in the past it could only be seized for public use.
The question up for debate here is on this notion of eminent domain, and whether or not these protestors have a legitimate beef here. Is Souter’s ruling coming back to bite him in the ass, or are these people just crackpots with no case? From my perspective it looks like payback’s a bitch, but that Souter is facing his own medicine, but then I don’t know a ton about it so I’d like to hear some opinions.
I think the Supreme Court ruling was a horrible mistake, so it would be great if Souter got a taste of his own medicine. Unfortunately, in this case, it seems that these people have a negligible chance of succeeding.
That’s funny. I think the case was properly decided; it would’ve have been a case of “making law from the bench” otherwise.
Now, I also think the government’s power to take private property as they see fit is a travesty, and I fully support states that are passing laws to prevent this type of eminent domain.
The case was most certain not properly decided. The constitution sanctions taking private property for public benefit, not for the private benefit of others.
Regardless, I doubt the people trying to get Souter’s place will succeed, but they are not out of bounds with their effort. Depending on New Hampshire law, if the government can take private property and turn it over to another private entity because that entity’s use will result in the “public benefit” of higher taxes or increased tourism or whatever, then taking Souter’s land is perfectly legal. Hell, I bet quite a few people will go to a hotel located there. It would certainly bring in more money that the Souter farm.
Well, if you say so, it has to be true. :rolleyes:
There’s room for disagreement on this point (I think the case was rightly decided on both legal and political grounds). So quit declaiming your answer from the rooftops. Make your argument.
I fully realize that. I do not think it’s a good legal decision besides being immoral
Of course. The Bill of rights says no private property shall be taken for public use without compensation. Public use means for governmental purposes such as roads, government buildings, etc. If you redefine that to mean anything the government thinks is useful (private residences, shopping malls, etc.), then you have effectively made “public use” mean nothing. If private condominiums is a public use, what isn’t a public use? The word is rendered meaningless.
What you’re effectively arguing is that government should have the right to take any property, any time, for any reason.
If you honestly think that is consistent with a constitution that seeks to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and a constitution that makes specific mention of property rights, then I don’t know what to think.
You really think Madison would have been cheering on Joseph Stalin?
No, I cannot, for the same reason I cannot define “tachyon field fluctuation” as it’s used in the Constitution – i.e. that phrase is NOT IN THE FREAKING CONTSITUTION.
The court read that the words “public benefit” in place of the actual words “public use”. Their decision on that basis is not merely wrong, but insupportable.
So? Remember, every government has eminent domain power. It is one of the defining attributes of sovereignty. The Fifth Amendment is not the basis for that power of the federal government nor of the states. It merely sets a limit on it by saying such takings must be compensated. But that’s the only limit it sets. We cannot look to the language of the Fifth Amendment for guidance on what does or does not constitute “public use”; the Amendment was never intended to address that.
This decision is slightly more honest than Kelo in that the Court openly admitted that it was simply making stuff up rather than adhering to the words of the Constitution.
Martin, BrainGlutton has the correct answer. The Fifth Amendment requires that compensation be paid for any takings. Given my understanding of the Framers’ respect for property rights, I think they’d be on board with this idea – their fear was not the government taking land; their fear was the government stealing land. And you know how I know that? Because I read the Constitution, where they protected against one but not the other.
See how I did that without the ad hominem attacks?
As much as I disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling, taking a Justice’s land as punishment is a) wrong, and b) has no chance of ultimately succeeding.
It might be interesting, though, if some endangered slime mold has found a niche on the Souter property…
Wrong. It also limits the takings for a public use. Those words have meaning. If any use the government decides on is “public,” then those words are meaningless.
The words obviously have meaning, though. “Public” does not mean “private.” If the framers wanted the open-ended power you seem to support, then why did they only say that takings can be for public use?
It reminds me of the expansive definition of “interstate commerce.” Under the definition in use today, every action is “interstate commerce,” just as every use of property is now “public use.”