July 1, 2005
- I don’t think that I would be too off the mark if I
said the Founding Fathers and their compatriots would have stormed the
Supreme Court Building, torches and pitchforks in hand, looking for the five
justices who championed the Kelo v. City of New London ruling. I have no
doubt they would have found the court’s decision tyrannical, the ruling more
consistent with the court of the King than those charged with upholding the
Constitution of free men.
The ruling is so atrocious that I felt the need to contact the justices. But
while I was paging through the US Supreme Court’s website it became
apparent, the justices don’t feel the need to afford "We the People” access
to them. In fact, the only email opportunity on the entire webpage was to
let them know of technical difficulties.
The last I checked the Supreme Court is indeed a branch of our government.
So, it is quite disturbing that the justices make it next to impossible to
contact them. Could it be that the Judicial Branch of our government is so
arrogant that they will not be bothered by those for whom they work?
To summarize the ruling while avoiding legalese, the Supreme Court (in
particular Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen
Breyer and John Paul Stevens) decided that local governments can seize
private property in favor of private development for the sole purpose of
generating tax revenue. They contend that generating tax revenue is a
"common good.” To be fair they also said that individual states could
restrict that power and at least 10 already do.
In today’s political climate it takes something quite remarkable for
Republicans and Democrats to come together. But as I navigated the halls of
the Longworth and Rayburn buildings on Capitol Hill last week it was obvious
that the Supreme Court’s decision had left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth,
and in Washington DC that’s a hard thing to do!
This ruling stems directly from socialist ideology. It allows local
governments to redistribute wealth as they see fit under the pretense that
it benefits the masses. This is about as far away from the idea of liberty
as one can get.
Picture the home in which you were brought up. Your Mother and Father
inherited the house and the land from your Grandparents and they from their
parents. The neighborhood has changed over the years but they still have a
nice, well maintained house on a nice piece of land. It overlooks a
beautiful scene as do the properties and houses of their neighbors.
Throughout your life you have always expected to live there in your later
years and hoped to one day pass that land on to your children upholding a
tradition into the fourth generation.
But wait, the town in which your parents’ house is located had an election
and the new mayor and board want to make something of this sleepy little
town. They are approached by a mega-developer with visions of a nice resort
hotel overlooking a beautiful scene complete with a golf course, restaurants
and a spa. The point that wins the support of the town’s elected officials
is that the resort would generate tax revenue which, overwhelmed by the
dollar signs, they could then spend at will.
Now, I’ll give you three guesses as to where that beautiful scenic view is
located. That’s right, the town is now looking at the property that sits
under your parents’ house and the houses of your parents’ neighbors. Thanks
to the 2005 Supreme Court town officials can now take your parents land even
if they don’t want to sell. In fact, the town will most likely confiscate
their property paying a fraction of its worth for compensation.
This scenario illustrates the redistribution of wealth from your parents and
from your family – from you – to the people of your parents’ town via tax
revenue. The profits the new property owners and wealthy developers accrue
from what used to be your parents’ land only adds insult to injury. It is no
less than theft. You get a pittance while big business and the newly defined
"common good” profit at your expense. How very socialist.
Local governments are going to manipulate this decision to the furthest
extent possible. Already mayors in major metropolitan areas are maneuvering
to attain large tracts of private property under the new definition of
eminent domain. And they will snatch that land whether the owners wants to
sell it or not. They will seize the land, "legally” depriving the land owner
of personal wealth, courtesy of the US Supreme Court.
I will go out on a limb and suggest that the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport
and David Souter’s home in New Hampshire will escape the socialist
redistribution of wealth. They have enough money to buy the lawyers to
circumvent being lumped in with the rest of us mere taxpayers. Still, I
would love for the Hyannisport building inspector to slap a "red tag” on
Kennedy’s front door so the next strip mall to house a Chucky Cheese could
be built.
The Kelo decision usurps the liberties of every land owner in the country
regardless of whether a state law prohibits it or not. The Supreme Court
hasn’t blurred the line between the public common good and the private
sector, they have obliterated it.
Even Dred Scott would agree; Kelo v. City of New London is perhaps the
worst, pro-socialist decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court.
From town president and forest preserve officials to your Congressmen and
Senators in Washington DC, everyone should write their elected officials to
protest this ruling. Demand that they finally take a stand against judicial
activism. I would tell you to write the Supreme Court justices as well but
they are too arrogant and too elitist to allow the "unwashed masses” access.
They’re obviously unwilling to be bothered with any concerns of ours, the
"useful idiots” whose property rights are now subordinate to the almighty
tax dollar.
Related Reading:
Kelo v. City of New London
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf
US Supreme Court of the United States of America
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html
|
