Carnival of True Civil Liberties Submissions Due
Posted on November 19, 2005
If you have a post that deals with how our civil liberties are being stripped away via judicial activism, the ACLU, etc.
Please SUBMIT IT TO OUR CARNIVAL
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “Carnival of True Civil Liberties Submissions Due”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Consider what’s happening with public education in Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court has defined the state constitution’s public education statement of “sufficient provision” to mean more than $11,000 per student, which will compel the legislature to increase property taxes by as much as $2 billion per year. Ouch! That’s judicial activism.
Stop Commies now
Indiana Fights Eminent Domain Issue
INDIANAPOLIS–Throughout the country, we are hearing heart-wrenching story after heart-wrenching story of small-business owners, plain-ole residents of Anytown, America–MY AMERICA– who actually helped ADVANCE AMERICA to the world leader that it is today, who are being FORCED by the government (you know the one–”By the people, for the people“–yea, that government), out of either their businesses or their homes because a new strip-mall would be better for the local economy and generate (and here’s the clincher) MORE TAX INCOME!
I cannot begin to tell you how infuriated I am. Of course, I probably don’t need to tell you, as polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans feel exactly the same way. This is just another example of how our liberal courts have made a hobby of screwing over the average, hard-working American who makes America the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.
The origins of eminent domain in the United States bare little similarity to what is going on today. The following excerpt is form the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia:
“In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that “public use” of the property be demonstrated. Most courts have interpreted “just compensation” to be the fair market value of the condemned property. Over the years the definition of “public use” has expanded to include economic development plans which use eminent domain seizures to enable commercial development for the purpose of generating more tax revenue for the local government. [1] Critics contend this perverts the intent of eminent domain law and tramples personal property rights.
In Calder v. Bull (1798 ), Justice Chase thought it was preposterous for the government to take one person’s property with no restriction and give it to another private party for their own profit. The definition of ‘public use’ was mostly viewed as ‘use by the public’ until the 20th century. The Supreme Court started expanding the definition in the 1920’s to condemn slums [2]. In 1981, in Michigan, the Michigan Supreme Court, building on the precedent set by Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) [3], permitted the neighborhood of Poletown to be taken in order to build a General Motors plant. Courts in other states relied on this decision, which was overturned in 2004 [4], as precedent. This expansion of the definition was argued before the United States Supreme Court in February 2005 [5], in Kelo v. New London [6] , when the city of New London, CT wanted to condemn 115 residences, among other things. In June 2005, the Supreme Court issued their decision in favor of New London, in a narrow 5-4 ruling—a decision that gives local governments wide latitude to decide when a seizure is for “public purposes”, including economic development. The court hinted, however, that states could pass laws limiting the purposes for which eminent domain could be used. The controversial ruling sparked a backlash among citizens, and several states either have or are in the process of passing laws limiting eminent domain to either traditional uses (roads and public buildings) or to eliminate blight.”
“The court hinted, however, that states could pass laws limiting the purposes for which eminent domain could be used.” Now, here is the key phrase in the decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court–and thank God they had at least enough sense to leave it. This is a way out for states who do not wish to become tyrants, deciding arbitrarily who should have a shot at the “American dream” and who should not.
Well, I want to give a rousing round of applause to some Indiana lawmakers who are moving to try and ensure that eminent domain, when used in Indiana, is used within its Constitutional confines.
In fact, according to a Sunday, Nov. 27, Courier-Journal (major Louisville, KY paper) story, Indiana lawmakers apparently considered trying to change eminent domain law last year because they knew the U.S. Supreme Court would be deciding the issue. However, as the article points out, few state lawmakers expected the Supreme Court to reconstruct the law (See:http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051127/NEWS02/511270375).
There is a feeling that something needs to be done on both sides of the aisle in Indiana. I think Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said it best in the Courier’s story, where he called the Supreme Court’s decision “erroneous” and “wrong-headed.”
“To take my home away from me — where I’ve raised my kids and my members are so a developer can make a profit and government can tax it more is contrary to what our forefathers believed about owning property,” he told The Courier-Journal.
Rep. David Wolkins, R-Winona Lake, says he doesn’t think the members of the IN General Assembly who want to restrict the use of eminent domain will succeed, so he has a different kind of proposal–one that will make it “significantly more expensive” for developers wishing to cash in on the new interpretation of eminent domain.
The newspaper’s story says that “Wolkins plans to introduce legislation that would put other requirements on private-to-private land transactions through eminent domain. Property owners would receive at least 150 percent of the fair market value of their owner-occupied homes, plus compensation for their relocation costs and attorney fees for fighting the seizure under his proposal. ‘We’re going to work to make sure people get something out of this,’ he said.”
“Wolkins also wants a law that prohibits eminent domain for private development unless the next-best alternative would increase the project’s cost by 10 percent or more” the newspaper explains.
Other Indiana lawmakers, however, do want to restrict the state’s ability to abuse the power of eminent domain. Sen. Connie Sipes, D-New Albany, has said that forcing party A to sell to party B, just for the purpose of party B making more money, isn’t fair.
Sipes, along with fellow Democrat Rep. Bill Cochran, also of New Albany, met last week with Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to let the Governor know where Hoosiers stand concerning the eminent domain issue
According to Sunday’s Courier story, “Daniels has not weighed in publicly about eminent domain. But through his press secretary, Jane Jankowski, the governor said he believes “we should be very careful about its use” and it should be reserved for “truly public purpose.”
He did not say whether he believed eminent domain should ever be used for transactions that involve private landowners.”
Personally, I see these lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, as heroes! Finally, we are starting to see some of these elected officials, who were, after all, elected to MAKE laws, take the reins back from activist judges who are trying to make the law up as they go.
I certainly am not as learned as they who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, but even I can see that the new interpretation of eminent domain is a clear infringement on Americans’ Constitutional rights!