Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Eminent Domain Ruling.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:37 AM
Original message
Eminent Domain Ruling.
In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas. 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 A. 2d 500, 507 (2004). In assembling the land needed for this project, the citys development agent has purchased property from willing sellers and proposes to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. The question presented is whether the citys proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Opinion of the Court, KELO V. NEW LONDON

IMO, were getting decimated on the Kelo v. New London ruling.

There are a handful of Democrats decrying the ruling, but by and large, Republicans are leading the charge.

The common argument in defense of the ruling is if the court would have entered into narrowing the definition of public use it would have opened a can of worms about redefining other words in other interpretations of the Constitution.

But that goes on all the time.

Another argument is that it would have stopped the use of ED completely, which is the true intent of the conservatives on this issue.


But here are some facts; Republican reps are proposing legislation left, right and center because the SC decided to continue to let the states interpret public use which is the precedent. The legislation being proposed by and large limits the interpretation of public use to exclude interpretations that are based solely on profit-driven economic development. If the moderate Supremes had their way on this decision, why could they not cleverly fashion a ruling to guide legislators when interpretating 'public use'. Now, the field seems to be wide open for interpretation, and corporate America just wet its jeans.

Heres what got me started off on the wrong foot on this topic; my ill-informed post about Judge Souters House.

I believe that there must be more discussion here, because defending this ruling seems a little like defending feudal corporatism. I believe that by sticking with precedent, Souter and co. are ignoring the flood of ED abuse which is ongoing; and encourage more corporate raiders.

Not talking about it is not making it go away, and Republicans, Libertarians, property rights advocates and moderates are making points on this issue, and Dems are looking pretty flatfooted right now.

Lets have some discussion about making some positive noise, encourage Democratic leaders to lead on this issue, and take it away from the Red team.


Here are some opinions as to why the Kelo case is freaking out homeowners:

Reckless With Wrecking Ball

Eminent injustice in New London

Bill Clinton; Court Was 'Wrong' on Eminent Domain

Little Italy laundry threatened with eminent domain

Letter: Landowners invite others to join the fight against eminent domain


Here is a lengthy, informative thread provided by endarkenment, over at KOS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Eminent Domain:
It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the words of the Constitution. That can of worms was opened by the founding fathers. That is what judges do - interpret the law.

I don't think that a different vote on Kelo would have eliminated ED altogether - just would have kept it where it was prior to now.

I agree with you. I don't believe that the founders intended the clause to be interpreted this way and support state laws forbidding it.

Dems need to get on this quick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 22nd 2017, 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC