George Putnam
Saturday, Jan. 21, 2006

Reprint Information

Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves White House: We're Not Subject to FOIA FBI Seeks 2 Mysterious Men on Ferry Publisher: Conservatives Do Read As Much As Liberals Romney Shrugs Off Mormon History Film

It is this reporter's opinion that we have only begun to see America's outrage over the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling recognizing the power of local governments to seize property for private development projects in order to generate tax revenue. If you recall, this is the high court's ruling that any property may now be taken for the benefit of ANOTHER private property.

The case that brought the ruling in sharp focus was KELO VS. CITY OF NEW LONDON, which allowed a Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law.

Thus, the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the home, by approving seizure of private property for use by developers.

Story Continues Below

Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Kelo case is significant because the seizure is for PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, not for PUBLIC USE, such as a highway or a bridge. The Fifth Amendment reads:

No person can be deprived of life, liberty or property, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

There has been violent reaction all across America. For example, here in Los Angeles land was wrested from private hands for the sole purpose of building an animal shelter. The City of Los Angeles seized a business from an unwilling seller, then abandoned the idea so that the property wound up in the hands of a private developer who had no interest in the original intent and purpose.

Are we to conclude that under today's interpretation of eminent domain, the law is to benefit the rich and powerful as opposed to the private-property owner?

But the chickens are coming home to roost. Two of the key justices in the Supreme Court ruling, Stephen Breyer and David Souter, are finding their own private property under attack. A California property rights activist is determined to have a New Hampshire town seize the property of Justice Souter under eminent domain. And the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire wants to seize the 167-acre vacation retreat of Justice Breyer. Souter and Breyer are two of the five justices who voted against the Connecticut homeowner.

The irony is that the Libertarians intend to establish a public recreation area named Constitution Park, featuring monuments celebrating the U.S. and New Hampshire Constitutions.

Out here on the West Coast, California State Senator Tom McClintock has recently filed a constitutional amendment initiative to protect property owners from abuses of eminent domain. He calls it the Homeowner and Property Protection Act. The legislation would prevent the government from seizing property from one person for the private use and benefit of another, as is currently permitted under the Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is an example of what states are doing to override the Kelo decision.

All of this is only the beginning as Americans again shout for property rights – that a man's home is still his castle.

Editor's note:
Find out how the Supreme Court is destroying America – Click Here
Warning: Oil Prices Will Collapse, Profit from It!
This test is more important than Cholesterol!