Supreme Court abolishes private property

Actually, all SCOTUS said is that the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit local governments from applying Eminent Domain in this way. If local citizens have a problem with such applicaitions, or if they wish to impose controls on how their local government makes the decision to apply Eminent Domain, SCOTUS won't stop them, and neither will the Federal Constitution.

In other words, this may be a problem, but according to SCOTUS, it's a problem that local communities will each have to solve for themselves. The federal government is staying out of it.

Beat you to it. Link

The problem is, this majority thinks it is doing its job.  Legislating from the bench.

I wouldn't call this legislating from the bench. The fifth amendment says, in part, that people can't "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So the question is, does giving land to private corporations for them to develop count as "public use?" There's the argument that it creates jobs and suchlike, and therefore benefits the public as a whole. But you've got to balance that against people having their homes and businesses taken away. And that has a lot of weight, as far as i'm concerned. When the government takes property from some private individuals and gives it to other private individuals that's called redistribution of wealth. That's a communist thing. I guess it's reasonable to try it if it ever becomes clear that our capitalist economy is failing, but it seems to be doing relatively well to me. Don't mess with it.

I wouldn't call this legislating from the bench. The fifth amendment says, in part, that people can't "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Well, they just created a new law.  What would you call creating a new law?  I call it legislating from the Bench.

Sure you can argue it is for the public good.  Isn't that what Stalin said in the old USSR?

What new law did they create?

And did the local government seize the private property without giving compensation?

And anyway, why shouldn't this issue be dealt with by local communities in the first place, rather than making a federal case out of it? The Supreme Court seems to have the same question (and as far as I can tell, their answer is "no reason").

And did the local government seize the private property without giving compensation? And anyway, why shouldn't this issue be dealt with by local communities in the first place, rather than making a federal case out of it? The Supreme Court seems to have the same question (and as far as I can tell, their answer is "no reason").

Whether or not they offered compensation is immaterial. Is the US governments name on the deed? Don't think so. What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Does this not infringe on that? Who gives a damn if it creates jobs. They are depriving people or their rightful property! You do not get a choice. If you don't take what "they" offer as compensation, tough boogers! They'll just take it anyway and claim "emminent domain".

Some people might argue that there's no such thing as "just" compensation for forcing a family to move against their will. And is it really in the public interest to forcibly shut down family busniesses to make room for nation-wide businesses to expand?

The US Constitution is supposed to protect against the wrongful seizure of property. The property owners asked the Supreme Court to step in to stop their property from being seized and given to other private businesses. The Supreme Court chose not to. No new law, just a dereliction of duty.

drmiler,

First of all, the 5th Amendment says that private property may be taken if compensation is given. Since it's totally constitutional to take private property in exchange for compensation, that would make the compensation issue pretty frickin' material, don't you think?

Second, the U.S. government isn't even involved in this particular case. In fact, that's the whole point of the Supreme Court's ruling: The Federal Constitution allows it, therefore the Federal Government has no authority to--or interest in--stopping it. And the U.S. Government's name is never going to be on the deed, since the issue is actually between a local government and its citizens. This right here would be the "immaterial" bit of the argument that you're looking for.

Third, while our system recognizes the priority of private propery rights in general, it also recognizes that there are some circumstances where the good of the community is best served by government administration of the property. "Eminent Domain" is a time-honored concept that is reasonably applied on a regular basis.

Finally, what the Supreme Court has said is that if local governments want to apply Eminent Domain in this way, the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit such an application. In other words, it is up to the local community to devise and apply stricter controls on Eminent Domain if they want to.

Sure, it might be nice if the Constitution and the Supreme Court actually granted the Federal Government the authority to swoop into any local community, override the local government, and apply some stricter standard of Eminent Domain. But then again, it might not be. Surely you're not clamoring for the Feds to interfere more in local politics, are you?

PJ_,

As you say, the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect against the wrongful seizure of property. In this case, the Supreme Court has ruled that the seizure of property was not wrongful. If you're saying that the Supreme Court made a mistake, I'd expect to see extensive quoting of the Supreme Court's decision, along with a thoughtful legal analysis that clearly rebuts their argument.

And I'm not trying to say that the local government did a good thing. It sounds like they screwed the pooch, really. But that doesn't mean that the Feds should step in. And it looks like the Supreme Court feels the same way I do.

---

The problem with Mom & Pop businesses is that the population keeps growing. And the more the population grows, the more efficient you have to be, to keep everybody fed, clothed, and sheltered. Mom & Pop businesses don't leverage economies of scale, and end up becoming more and more resource-intensive the larger your population becomes.

The big national chains solve this problem by being big national chains. They have built large and efficient nationwide infrastructures for shipping, warehousing, and customer transactions. They have figured out how to keep pace with a growing population that has a growing demand for necessities and luxuries.

If Mom & Pop businesses were going to survive the inevitable changes of a prosperous economy, they needed to form nationwide shipping and warehousing co-ops back in the Seventies (if not earlier). And even then, they'd have to eat additional distribution costs at the local level. It's a lot cheaper for Joe Trucking Company to deliver two tons of goods to the Wal-Mart on the edge of town, than it is for him to deliver two cases of goods to each Mom & Pop on Main Street (and that is one of the real reasons why Wal-Mart is so cheap and invincible--because it can leverage economies of scale and pass that savings on to its consumers).

What new law did they create?

The ability for government to sieze land for private use.  Show me where that is in the constitution.

The property owners asked the Supreme Court to step in to stop their property from being seized and given to other private businesses. The Supreme Court chose not to. No new law, just a dereliction of duty.

Hence they created a law where none existed before.  The ability of government to seize property for other private citizens.

First of all, the 5th Amendment says that private property may be taken if compensation is given.

Since you are going to quote it, quote the whole thing.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note the bold part.  it does not say "Public or Private".  It says "Public". Period.

And the Supreme Court says that giving public land over to a private corporation to develop is not a violation of the Constitution. Disputing their decision involves more than just saying they're wrong, Dr. Guy.

Technically, it was the local government that created the law that took away the private property. The Supreme Court could have struck the law down, but instead it let the local government's decision stand.

stutefish, you're right that I probably should have read the court's decision in full before shooting my mouth off. Here's a link for anyone else who's interested. And as for a "thoughtful legal analysis that clearly rebuts their argument," that would be extreemly difficult for anyone other than a trained lawyer to provide, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I don't think a person's opinion should be discounted because they don't have an advanced degree to back it up.

This definitely doesn't count as "public use".  They are handing land over to another private party.

public land

The land is Private land. If it was public land, there would nt be an issue.

IG

Actually, there's a thoughtful legal analysis built right into the decision, in the form of the Dissent. I'll toddle off and read that now. Since four of the Justices think the other five are wrong on this one (and pretty much every conservative in the blogosphere besides me seems to agree with the Dissenters), I'm open to the increasingly likely possibility that I have my head firmly up my party-hatted behind.

---

Draginol, it seems to me that in principle there is room in the Eminent Domain doctrine for the government to take property from one private citizen and give it to another, with the understanding that the private citizen on the receiving end will better develop the land to the benefit of the community. I'm not sure that Eminent Domain requires the government to always develop the property itself (and, as a conservative, in most cases I'd prefer to see private entities do the work under contract, and at a profit).

---

Please note that none of what I've said is meant as an approval of what the local government has done in this case.

And indeed, the Dissenters make a powerful case, which challenges my whole idea of this case and its resolution.

ITs wrong, another freedom taken away...one down(depends on how you think...) _____ to go....

Reading Justice Thomas' dissent I got the impression that reading the Constitution was a lot like reading scripture. Something about the way he backed up his interpretation of the word "use," citing a dictionary and other contemporary documents that used the word as evidence.

Under this decision it's up to the legislature (or an agency acting on its behalf) to decide whether it would be more beneficial to the public good to let you keep your property or give it to someone else to make better use of it. And as Justice O'Connor points out, no one can prove that he or she is making better use of his or her property than anyone else could. And if the government reasonably believes that he or she isn't, it's within its rights to reassign the property to someone else. Doesn't that give you a chill? A private, single-family seems to me to be a rather inefficient use of land, after all.

If you take this case to its logical conclusion, the state can, based solely at its own discretion, remove people from their property in favor of other people to be put on that property.  One could find their home, their business, their legacy uprooted simply because someone else -- soemone with better political clout, wants the land you have.

I remember how people felt when I wrote about the estate tax -- I support a form of estate tax.  But this is beyond the worst extremes that estate taxes could do.

drmiler, First of all, the 5th Amendment says that private property may be taken if compensation is given. Since it's totally constitutional to take private property in exchange for compensation, that would make the compensation issue pretty frickin' material, don't you think?

It IS imaterial. How would you like to be thrown out of your home (don't refuse the compensation or you will not get anything at all) so it can be torn down and see it used to build a mall? How about if it's been your "family" home for a couple of generations? I think a little reserch might be in order for you "stute"

Eminent domain From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.

Nowhere in the definition of eminent domain is it said that they can take "private" land and give it to another "individual".
There is a BIG stink going on about the misuse of this power. And these are but the tip of the iceberg!

Link

Link

Link

Actually, all SCOTUS said is that the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit local governments from applying Eminent Domain in this way. If local citizens have a problem with such applicaitions, or if they wish to impose controls on how their local government makes the decision to apply Eminent Domain, SCOTUS won't stop them, and neither will the Federal Constitution.

Not really Stutefish. If the Supreme Court wanted to leave Eminent Domain at the state and local level, they would have merely refused to take the case. As soon as they took the case, and presented their decision, they in affect stated that it is the law of the land that states and local municipalities are allowed to declare eminent domain on private property, even if the property is to be sold to another private entity.

All decisions by the Supreme Court set precedence as federal law. No matter which side they found for, just accepting the case took eminant domain from the hands of the state and local governments.

Well, I've changed my mind about this case. I am now convinced that the Supreme Court has made a horrible mistake with consequences none of us should welcome.

That said, I don't see anything in the case that takes the final decision about Eminent Domain away from the local governments. If SCOTUS had said "eminent domain may not be applied in this way", that would've taken eminent domain from the hands of the local and state governments. It's not like the feds will force local governments to seize private property for private development if the local governments don't want to.