The 5th Amendment Does Not Apply in Connecticut
George Will has an excellent column in today's Washington Post (free registration required).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30314-2004Sep17.html
The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether to grant cert. The state's high court has held that the government can, pursuant to it's eminent domain power, take the middle class neighborhood of Fort Trumball and give it to wealthy developers to increase tax revenue and "enhance" pharmaceutical giant Pfizer's research facility.
"The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood's middle-class homeowners. "
"The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property -- a home, a business -- and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth?"
"But the Fifth Amendment says, among other things: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (emphasis added). Every state constitution also stipulates takings only for "public use." The framers of the Bill of Rights used language carefully; clearly they intended the adjective "public" to restrict government takings to uses that are directly owned or primarily used by the general public, such as roads, bridges or public buildings. "
The decision below is available here:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:UhpB66rGoJgJ:www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR268/268cr152.pdf+kelo+v+new+london&hl=en
If the state court decision ignored or upheld, the prospect of "new jobs," more "tax and other revenues" and "revitalizing" urban areas is enough to satisfy the public purpose requirement of the 5th Amendment. This low and subjective "standard" (for lack of a better term) would allow the government to take our homes and hand them over to powerful interests anywhere in America, at any time.
Aren't you glad to know that your right to read this at your home exists so long as Wal-Mart doesn't want what's yours?
Finally, riddle me this Connecticut Supreme Court. If the area is so badly in need of "urban revitalization," why are the people who live there fighting so hard to keep it?
We should all be watching to see what the U.S. Supreme Court does.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30314-2004Sep17.html
The United States Supreme Court will soon decide whether to grant cert. The state's high court has held that the government can, pursuant to it's eminent domain power, take the middle class neighborhood of Fort Trumball and give it to wealthy developers to increase tax revenue and "enhance" pharmaceutical giant Pfizer's research facility.
"The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood's middle-class homeowners. "
"The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property -- a home, a business -- and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth?"
"But the Fifth Amendment says, among other things: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (emphasis added). Every state constitution also stipulates takings only for "public use." The framers of the Bill of Rights used language carefully; clearly they intended the adjective "public" to restrict government takings to uses that are directly owned or primarily used by the general public, such as roads, bridges or public buildings. "
The decision below is available here:
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:UhpB66rGoJgJ:www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR268/268cr152.pdf+kelo+v+new+london&hl=en
If the state court decision ignored or upheld, the prospect of "new jobs," more "tax and other revenues" and "revitalizing" urban areas is enough to satisfy the public purpose requirement of the 5th Amendment. This low and subjective "standard" (for lack of a better term) would allow the government to take our homes and hand them over to powerful interests anywhere in America, at any time.
Aren't you glad to know that your right to read this at your home exists so long as Wal-Mart doesn't want what's yours?
Finally, riddle me this Connecticut Supreme Court. If the area is so badly in need of "urban revitalization," why are the people who live there fighting so hard to keep it?
We should all be watching to see what the U.S. Supreme Court does.
posted by Chris at 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home