Judges Approve "Eminent Domain" Policy

In a 5-4 decision, federal judges have now decided that the policy of "eminent domain" can be extended to include anything local officials feel would be "beneficial" to the community at large. The concept of "Eminent Domain" means that private land can be bought by the government if it is helpful to the general public. Until now, this was limited to public works projects such as highways or state buildings. But this is all going to change. The small town of New London in Connecticut was facing dire economic problems. To fix this, the New London City council decided to commandeer private riverfront lands for commercial development. State Representative Ernest Hewett, one of the members of the council, explained:
"I am charged with doing what's best for the 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent domain process designed to revitalize a city . . . with nowhere to go."
Plans include a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum. When local residents complained that their homes were being unjustly wrenched from them, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. As may be expected, our liberal bench ruled in favour of big-government. "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," said Justice John Paul Stevens. But not all of the bench agrees. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservative principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." To read the rest of the story, click here.
Okay. Let me get this straight. I work hard to earn money, while I give a good 20 percent to the Federal Government. Then, I buy a home for myself and my family (remembering Uncle Sam in cash for the privilege). Every year, I pay a hefty property tax to the state and the Feds. Then, some rich kid on the city council decides that my property would make a good HiltonHead Hotel. Bingo! I am now approached with the "opportunity" to sell my hard-earned land. If I agree, they pay me half of what I paid for my own home . . . with the money that I have paid them already. If I disagree, they buy up all the land around me and put in a housing strip or a mall, forcing the value of my home into the dumps and ruining the area. And this is "Constitutional"? "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," said Justice John Paul Stevens. Give me a break! The function of goverment is to prevent and punish plunder, the very thing that is now being legislated by the Supreme Court! Let's impeach these judges! In Him, D3

1 comment:

MVB said...

Terrible! What gives them the right to take our land. We've lost one of our freedoms. Very sad.