PDA

View Full Version : Is This Still the Republic Our Founders Intended It To Be?



thedrifter
07-04-05, 10:09 AM
Courtesy of Mark aka The Fontman


Is This Still the Republic Our Founders Intended It To Be?
Eva Ellsworth
July 4, 2005

On this anniversary of the approval of the final draft of the Declaration of Independence, the Kelo vs. City of New London eminent domain ruling gives me grave doubts that this is the republic the Founding Fathers intended it to be. John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." I don't know about anarchy, but tyranny seems imminent.

In the Kelo decision, the majority on the Supreme Court, (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter), expanded the definition of public use to include private projects that promise to bring jobs and/or increase revenue. I thought seizure of private lands and their redistribution for the "benefit of the community" only happened under communistic, totalitarian regimes. This nation was founded on the concept of individual rights, liberties and responsibilities - not collectivism. Owning property has always been part of the "American Dream." Now we have little faith that our homes, businesses or other private property will not be seized by the government if another individual or business can generate more tax revenue from it.

Revenue, not jobs, is the real force behind the seizures. According to John Fund in Political Diary, on the day after the Kelo ruling, the town of Freeport, TX announced it would condemn the properties of two seafood companies for the building of a private marina. The town will loan the developers $6 million for the project. Fund wrote, "What is certain is that the displacement of the two seafood companies will cost scores of jobs."

Use of eminent domain in such cases is illegal except for blighted properties in eight states, (AR, FL, IL, KY, ME, MT, SC and WA). This helps property owners in those states, but does not entirely protect them because blight is loosely defined. When the average person thinks of blight, he thinks of property that hasn't been maintained in the past few years. Government officials do not see blight that way. In a CBS story, Mayor Cain of Lakewood, OH said, "The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards." That could mean almost anything. For example, a house without walk-in closets could be defined as not up to "today's standards" because new homes have them.

The House of Representatives recently passed a bill to deny some federal funds for city or state projects in which eminent domain was used to transfer property to private developers. The bill affects funding by the Treasury Department, Department of Transportation and HUD. A similar bill is pending in the Senate. These bills are a good start, but they don't protect property owners in cases where federal funding comes from other departments or is not involved. For example, federal funding is generally not used to build luxury "town home" developments, yet such developments bring in far more property tax revenue than the mid-priced single family homes they often replace.

The Kelo ruling should apply to those who made it. That may happen. Los Angeles based Freestar Media is applying to the town of Weare, NH to use eminent domain to acquire a house belonging to Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Freestar Media plans to have a hotel built on the site which is likely to generate more tax revenue than Souter's property does. The hotel will be named "The Lost Liberty Hotel" and will include the "Just Desserts Café" and a museum with "an exhibit on the loss of freedom in America." I believe that what is deemed acceptable treatment of ordinary US citizens should be acceptable for those who deemed it so.

In light of the Kelo ruling and other recent Supreme Court decisions, our focus should be on whether nominees for the Supreme Court and other federal courts will interpret laws as they were written. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's replacement should be a strict constructionist; not a jurist who will twist and stretch the language of our Constitution in order to fashion new legislation. We should not have situations in which legislation by legislatures is needed to undo legislation by the judiciary. The judicial branch is not supposed to legislate by "interpreting" legislation in ways that were never intended.

I read that, when Benjamin Franklin left the final meeting of the Constitutional Convention, the wife of the mayor of Philadelphia asked him what the new government would be. He replied, "A republic, Madam. If you can keep it." When it comes to the potential nominees for the Supreme Court, make sure Congress approves a jurist who will try to do that.


Ellie