Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.
I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.
|
Along the same lines:
Senate Panel Debates Eminent Domain
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
By Greg Simmons
WASHINGTON — Sparked by a recent Supreme Court ruling, the debate over eminent domain (search) raged on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee as witnesses dueled over whether local power to take private property hurts homeowners or helps improve communities.
The hearing follows a heated national debate set off in June when the nation's highest court decided 5-4 in favor of town officials who sought the authority to seize private land and turn it into to a commercial office and hotel park. Kelo et. al. v. the City of New London is the first ruling in which eminent domain has been extended to allow governments to take private property for private development rather than for public use.
“This battle against eminent domain abuse may have started as a way for me to save my little pink cottage, but it has rightfully grown into something much larger — the fight to restore the American dream and the sacredness and security of each one of our homes,” Suzette Kelo (search) told committee members.
Kelo and others -- including the pastor of a church that was lost in the development battle, an NAACP official and a law professor -- criticized the ruling.
“The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically targeting minority neighborhoods,” said Hilary O. Shelton (search), director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau. “By allowing pure economic development motives to constitute public use for eminent domain purposes, state and local governments will now infringe on their property rights of those with less economic and political power with more regularity.”
Others, however, expressed support for the ruling.
“The Kelo decision affirmed that eminent domain, a power derived from state law, is one best governed by the states and their political subdivisions,” said Eddie Perez, the mayor of Hartford, Conn. He was speaking on behalf of the National League of Cities.
Perez said that without eminent domain powers, New Orleans and other areas affected by Hurricane Katrina would face a difficult time recovering.
Thomas Merrill (search), a Columbia Law School professor, told the committee members that the ruling appears to be helping the nation figure out how eminent domain should work. Merrill said the court's decision has pushed state legislatures to come up with clear rules on when government has the power to take private property.
“I think the political process is responding” to the ruling, Merrill said.
But Sen. Jon Kyl (search), R-Ariz., disagreed, citing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor's (search) argument in her dissent.
“What she’s saying is it’s the Supreme Court’s duty to enforce constitutional rights. We shouldn’t be passing off the buck to state legislatures to do whatever they think is right,” Kyl said.
Sen. Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa. and the committee's chairman, opened the hearing by saying he wasn’t necessarily for or against the ruling, but that it is one to be explored.
“This is a matter that requires congressional analysis,” Specter said, adding that the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether it was a "wise, appropriate taking of private property."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169926,00.html