The story is as old as mankind. The land was the King's and the people serfs. The people were in effect renters, if the King needed that land away you went. Finally the people revolted, for many reasons but one important reason was that a man's property was his own and could not be legally taken without due process. It could not be taken from him just because a more powerful man coveted it. That principle just changed today with a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court. If a rich developer wants your house the local Government can seize it, pay you what they think it's worth, and give or sell it to the developer. In this case it was Pfizer Corp. who was seeking to expand its' research center with an adjoining riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront. The "little people" who did not want to sell their homes, some of which had been in the family for generations, for the betterment of the State were hit with eminent domain power to seize private property if the land is for public use. This of course means for roads, dams, railways, White Sands Missile Range, etc. But how is a private company considered "public use"? Because it will bring in more taxes.
What American would bow to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans. Damn Republicans? Actually the Judges who voted for this were liberal judges John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Anthony Kennedy, AKA "Reagan's greatest mistake". Why would these "champions of the common man" vote for large corporate interests? Because it is a vote for large government's interests, namely tax revenue. The founding fathers who were opposed to unrestrained search and seizure are rolling in their graves.
Update:
Jay777 at Stop the ACLU! has a petition up that has two goals:
#1 --Support Supreme Court and lower court judicial nominees who
will uphold the Constitution and thereby defend public
faith and the unborn.
#2 --Ensure that President Bush’s nominees receive an up-or-down
vote in the U.S. Senate.
1 comment:
Maybe we need a constitutional amendment? You know, to supplement the one we already have that we thought protected us from this sort of tyranny. When I say "tyranny", I'm not engaging in hyperbole. It really is tyranny for the government to take a person's private property.
Post a Comment