And Government Taketh Away
This article in CNS News warns that Churches are especially threatened by the Supreme Court decision KELO vs. NEW LONDON, in which the Court greatly expanded the powers of Eminent Domain to allow governments to seize property for developement (or non-developement).
Sandra Day O`Conner, in one of her more lucid opinions, sees danger here:
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the slippery slope she believes the court's majority created with its decision.
"[T]he Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordi\-nary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public -- such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure."
O'Connor voiced another concern, one that resonated with groups advocating on behalf of religious rights. She warned that in expanding the definition of "public use," the majority had come close to embracing "the absurd argument that ... any church that might be replaced with a retail store ... is inherently harmful to society, and thus within the government's power to condemn."
Let`s face it, folks; local and regional governments are going to look to their own interests, and they will seize property if they think they can derive some benefit. Certainly Churches will be easy pickings for them. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights; it was to constrain government from acting like, well, government! To paraphrase-the Lord giveth, and government taketh away. The Founding Fathers understood this.
I believe that Environmentalists are going to catch on to this, and use it profitably to tie up large amounts of real property. I own land in the Ozarks, land which I purchased from a local who had purchased it from a timber company. This particular company buys and sells large amounts of property, logging select sites when the trees mature, then selling it off. I can see the Sierra Club greasing palms at the County Seat to get the County Planning Commission to seize this property through Eminent Domain and declare it parkland. Compensation would be low, and our local timber companies would go belly-up, but that`s a small price to pay for our friends at the Sierra Club! (Actually, this particular example probably wouldn`t work since logging is just about the ONLY industry in Reynolds County. It would work fine in most other counties in Missouri.)
This was a terrible Court decision, and we will be suffering from it for a long, long time.
Sandra Day O`Conner, in one of her more lucid opinions, sees danger here:
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the slippery slope she believes the court's majority created with its decision.
"[T]he Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordi\-nary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public -- such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure."
O'Connor voiced another concern, one that resonated with groups advocating on behalf of religious rights. She warned that in expanding the definition of "public use," the majority had come close to embracing "the absurd argument that ... any church that might be replaced with a retail store ... is inherently harmful to society, and thus within the government's power to condemn."
Let`s face it, folks; local and regional governments are going to look to their own interests, and they will seize property if they think they can derive some benefit. Certainly Churches will be easy pickings for them. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights; it was to constrain government from acting like, well, government! To paraphrase-the Lord giveth, and government taketh away. The Founding Fathers understood this.
I believe that Environmentalists are going to catch on to this, and use it profitably to tie up large amounts of real property. I own land in the Ozarks, land which I purchased from a local who had purchased it from a timber company. This particular company buys and sells large amounts of property, logging select sites when the trees mature, then selling it off. I can see the Sierra Club greasing palms at the County Seat to get the County Planning Commission to seize this property through Eminent Domain and declare it parkland. Compensation would be low, and our local timber companies would go belly-up, but that`s a small price to pay for our friends at the Sierra Club! (Actually, this particular example probably wouldn`t work since logging is just about the ONLY industry in Reynolds County. It would work fine in most other counties in Missouri.)
This was a terrible Court decision, and we will be suffering from it for a long, long time.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:43 AM
2 Comments:
Terrific posting, there is a danger that Reagan used refer to when he said "Government is not the solution to our problem. Goverment is the problem." Something I also alluded to (on your topic for today at http://www.gmroper.com/archives/2005/06/trash_the_fifth_1.htm
Keep up the good work, I'm adding you to my blogroll page at http://gmroper.com/blogroll.html
I was waiting for someone to make this connection. I’m thankful that someone as bright Tim spotted it and decided to shout it out. This court has so often reveled in its anti-religion rulings that I am not shocked that they could contort the takings clause of the constitution into an atheists dream as they have here. This is precisely why the libs fight so hard every time a constructionist judge is nominated to the bench. They cannot advance their cause via the ballot box but with a supreme court that twists reality as this court has do they really need to?
Great post as usual...
Post a Comment
<< Home