Comments on: Speaking of the Constitution . . .

By: DH

DH — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:43:25 +0000

The freedom you give up today is the restriction you chafe against next week… Give a home-owners’ association control of your rights to decorate as you see fit, and soon everyone in the neighborhood will have the same color paint… Give away control of individual ownership of creative endeavors and soon no-one will bother exerting themselves for the sake of art, or entertainment (see html://www.thecelebritycafe.com for copyright discussion)… But PROPERTY?? That’s one of the few things they basically DON’T MAKE ANYMORE — and I have to wonder about the intentions of anyone even THINKING to put property ownership at risk!

By: Ed Friedemann

Ed Friedemann — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:41:59 +0000

The Constitution specifically prohibits eminent domain from being used for anything other than public use. I.E. “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”…..It doesn’t say : nor shall private property be taken for “private” use without just compensation” Those 5 Justices were swore to defend the Constitution and have failed that sworn duty. This isn’t a communist country where private ownership is not allowed. “Fee Simple” interest in property is well defined and carries with it absolute rights of ownership. For God’s sake, you can shoot and kill people for trespass, it’s statute law in almost every State.

By: Joe Williams

Joe Williams — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:31:48 +0000

This is just a thought I have about this issue, but what if the government decides to bulldoze churches down for the cause of private development. Why not? They do not produce any tax revenue for the state or local community.

I doubt if it would ever get that far, but it is a case for aurgument. Because I can see people rallying when the Supreme Court strikes down the Ten Commandments issue on Monday, and the private property issue will go on the way side, unless we can debate the issue using churches to get peoples attention.

By: Joe Williams

Joe Williams — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:59:03 +0000

You can name Kansas on the list of States that will allow this to happen. We have to get this changed!

From the MSN article about this:
“Where other states stand”

According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.

Eight states forbid the use of eminent domain when the economic purpose is not to eliminate blight; they are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington.

Another three — Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts — have indicated they probably will find condemnations for economic development alone unconstitutional, while the remaining states have not addressed or spoken clearly to the question.”

Sad day indeed!

By: SBP

SBP — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:58:27 +0000

Mr. Brownlee is correct that the Court today ruled that eminent domain can be used for private economic development without violating the “takings” clause of the Constitution. However, he holds out hope that the Kansas legislature should and will fix the situation. In fact, the Kansas Constitution contains no “takings” clause, although Kansas has an eminent domain law. Secondly, the Kansas Supreme Court has twice approved the taking of private property for private economic development—much like today’s ruling. The legislature has never tried to legislatively overrule those decisions. I, for one, am not optimistic that the legislature will grant relief to private property holders in Kansas. Worst of all, the Court has now sided with private developers. Shameful. I’m sure our elected officials and private developers are salivating over the prospect of fostering economic development at the expense of private property holders.

By: CF

CF — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:05:29 +0000

Speaking for myself, as a liberal, I think the majority’s decision is a DISASTER. Can you say, ‘Pandora’s Box?’