Keeping Tabs On Congress
So much for their oft-professed concern for the “little guys.”
Oh!--sorry, I forgot. The little guys can’t pay high taxes because they’re little guys.
OCM, watch the actions and deeds rather than listen to the rhetoric. The two don’t often match. When one of them says something about the other that makes you angry with the other group, check it out. There’s a pretty good chance there’s a lot of spin involved, if not an outright lie.
I have examples, if you’d like.
Even better is since it’s a state case, the only possible funds to use are development loans for Pfizer and redevelopment funds for the former Naval Undersea Warfare Center.
Either way, every legislator voting for it is just showing how stupid they are in the first place.
Posted by prairie biker
07/01/2005 at 07:16 PM
Remember, no one’s life, liberty or property is safe while the Legislature is in session!!
Posted by MAJ Mike
07/01/2005 at 07:50 PM
Prairie Biker re #5 - I don’t get it.
I think you are saying it’s a stupid bill, nobody should be voting for it and if they are, then they’re stupid.
If that’s the case then it calls into question what type of person you are. Certainly noone who believes in the right to own private property would espouse such views. Hopefully, I totally misconstrued your comment.
What it seems is that you are saying the bill would be of little consequence because very little federal monies go to the municipality in question (New London, CT) anyway.
This bill is drawn up so that ALL fifty states and any municipality in the fifty states are affected by it. And, on the contrary, NO state or town or county or whatever could ever sign up willingly to have their federal money cut off. NOBODY. It’s suicide. The Federal Government gives money to state governents, which gets broken up into smaller pieces and handed down to counties and towns within states. So, even STATE funds that a town receives from the state governent might be characterized as being FEDERAL funds. I think the legislation looks pretty sweeping if you ask me - o.k. you didn’t ask, but I told you anyway.
Dude. Your link to the text of the bill is not working for me at least. Here’s a good one for a PDF of the Senate version, from Senator Cornyn’s website. It appears to be a draft only.
house resolution denouncing the Kelo vs New London decision
can’t find anything else.
Damn! my congressman voted against it. Jim Moran is a prick.
I’m going to second what ztucka said. The “Here it is...” link is not working for me.
ztucka-
stupid for lots of reasons. eminent domain to purchase property includes more than just real estate. It includes intellectual, patent, trademark and copyright as well. The main goal of the New London move was to rejuvenate their economy and redevelop a lot of eyesore properties. The Supreme Court decision also was nothing nearly as exciting as people are making it out to be since the doctrine of ‘public purpose’ was first introduced in Berman v Parker (1954) and even included in a majority opinion by O’Connor in Midkiff, another of the supporting cases in Kelo. Nice that O’Connor wrote the opinion in Midkiff taking private homes in Hawaii and turning them over to other private parties and then somehow grew a conscience for Kelo, while still supporting her earlier opinion.
Kelo also contains specific language (as does Midkiff) forbidding one to one takings that are not part of a comprehensive development plan such as both Berman and Kelo (and Midkiff sortof) used. In fact, if you look at the facts of Berman it’s not a whole lot different other than being a federal action vice municipal.
The time for righteous indignation over eminent domain was when the Berman opinion was written 50 years and the public purpose doctrine introduced. Kelo adds nothing other than clarifying that municipalities can exercise the same power as the federal government in regards to the constitutional practice of taking.
I was saying the specific Kelo amendment was stupid. It would have little power by itself. As for the bill, it’s also pretty dumb since it forbids spending tax dollars on a perfectly constitutional practice and would cripple many smaller to mid size municipalities.
Am I being clear enough?
The way to fight this isn’t to cripple ourselves, it’s to pass a constitutional amendment clarifying and restricting eminent domain use.
Posted by prairie biker
07/01/2005 at 10:46 PM
Prairie Biker, I am going to agree with you that a constitutional amendment clarifying and restricting eminent domain use would be a good thing.
About this present bill that passed the house, though, ANY means of putting the brakes on eminent domain, however small it might be, is a GOOD THING. Many of us weren’t here 50 years ago to have righteous indignation over that Berman decision you speak of, and those of us who were “around” were probably little kids. I know that the concept of eminent domain is old, but this “Kelo” decision is an innovation, as I’m sure you’re aware. It EXPANDS the circumstances in which localities and such can exercise eminent domain. That is bad. No two ways about it.
Things can change. Even if the Kelo decision is nothing new at all, it doesn’t change the fact that this practice needs to be eliminated. I think we shall have to wait and see whether or not this bill has any teeth to it.
The reason we have a Supreme Court is so that people in whom the president, who appoints them, has trust that they will interpret the laws correctly interpret them. I am not a legal scholar, but I let the likes of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, William Rhenquist, and I guess, in this case, Sandra O’Connor, do my legal scholarship for me. They think the town of New London shouldn’t be able to take those properties, and so do I. Those houses, by the way, WERE NOT blighted, although the general area was pretty bad.
Insofar as intellectual property is concerned, this Kelo decision doesn’t touch that. I believe that any attempt to use this decision as a legal authority for the taking of intellectual property would not hold up under judicial scrutiny.
Again, I DO AGREE that a constitutional amendment FORBIDDING the taking of real property in any but extenuating circumstances would be great. I think we’re just whistlin’ dixie about that, though.
Curiosity question to Prairie Biker and ztucka: Why would the government be interested in ‘purchasing’ intellectual property? And if so, how would they determine a fair market value on it? Same question for trademarks, patents, and copyrights. It doesn’t make sense as those ‘properties’ are incorporeal.
Posted by Phoenix
07/02/2005 at 11:57 AM
"Purchasing intellectual property”? A good case in point would be the government purchasing Windows operating system from Microsoft. It is used in 90% of the desktop computers in the world so the government could standardize it, control it, secure it and tax it. Send the Marines to Hong Kong to take out software pirates. Make spamming a Windows computer a federal crime. Punishable by death.
Downside: when Windows regularly “phones home” for updates, it also reports on what you’ve been doing.
Thanks, Captain.
I read what you wrote and thought ‘good’...then ‘oh, bad’…
But, still, is Windows OS intellectual property? I see it as a technological creation as opposed to an intellectual creation.
Oh well… Send the Marines anyway....
Posted by Phoenix
07/02/2005 at 01:48 PM
You guys are in for a bit of a rude awakening. The government’s power to take property by eminent domain is not restricted to real estate. Private property means any private property as I said above. One of the supporting cases for Kelo is Ruckelshaus v Monsanto (1984) where a chemical company was required by law to surrender (in exchange for ‘just compensation’) pesticide formulas, including trade secrets, to an agency of the federal government. That agency then transferred these to other chemical companies and forwarded the compensation to the original company. This was to encourage ‘economic diversity’ in the pesticide market. It was still a ‘taking’ under eminent domain. This is what I meant above.
Kelo really is not worth the hoopla surrounding it. To understand what I mean, you will have to read it and the supporting cases. Kelo is available on the SCOTUS webpage and the supporting cases (identified in the opinion) are on findlaw. The case is not that long especially for a SCOTUS opinion. The majority is 20 pages (1/4 of which is footnotes) with about 20 more of supporting opinion by Kennedy. O’Connor’s dissent is about 17 pages and Thomas’ is another 20. It’s not heavy reading by any means.
The ONLY expansion in the opinion is the court clarified that not just the federal government, but also municipalities, can exercise eminent domain to take property for the broader ‘public purpose’ of economic development. ‘Public purpose’ vs. ‘public use’ is first used in Berman v. Parker (1954) as is the idea of taking a non-blighted property (Berman’s store) in the face of a ‘comprehensive development plan’. The only substantial difference between the two cases is that Berman involved Washington DC (federal control) and Kelo involves a municipality.
Do not fall prey to the media hoopla. They are grossly (and inaccurately) overstating it. What they claim is new in Kelo has been around since Berman in 1954.
Also please read Thomas’ dissent. O’Connor’s tends to ramble and she really tiptoes since she was the author of the majority opinion in Midkiff and she did everything possible to not contradict her misguided earlier opinion. But Thomas is brilliant in his dissent and really hits it on the head. Read Thomas.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Thomas.
Have a happy Fourth everyone. Even in the light of Kelo/Berman, we still live in the greatest country in the world.
Posted by prairie biker
07/02/2005 at 03:20 PM
PB: I have read the entire case, the arguments and the opinions, both asserting and dissenting. I grant you most of the points above. Berman was the start down this long slippery slope and it went entirely under the radar of most of the general populace mainly because it was used to clean up blighted areas of DC and court opinions since then have relied on Berman to stratify “public use” in eminent domain law.
Kelo is a mutated extension of Berman that moves eminent domain out of “public use” and into “private use” where individual property is concerned. Monsanto was a corporate snatch and no one in the general public cared much about it because of that at the time. Kelo strikes at the individual’s rights to own property without fear of snatches.
Justice Thomas was quite clear about that. This was a GIANT LEAP from the original intent of Berman and is stretching the concept of eminent domain to the breaking point. There will be trouble over this and people will get hurt if municipalities try to take advantage of it. What is needed is for Congress to corral in the SCOTUS decision with a law or Congressional Amendment before someone gets killed and I guarantee you there will be bloodshed eventually over this ruling unless it is aborted. The right to own peoperty is too basic to common law such that most people would (and do) consider this decision an insult to the most basic of freedoms and rights. Even more basic than freedom of speech or religion.
Prairie biker, you seem to be very astute. But if you agree with Thomas’ dissent, then how are you at the same time saying “it’s no big deal?”
Skipper, you’re right, and this is what I said above - although I was not aware that some of the precedent relied upon in Kelo came from government taking of intellectual property vis a vis pesticide formulas - this is a “mutation.” As everyone here can appreciate, local town and county governments are pretty different than the Federal Government. A lot more cronieism exists in local county and town governments.
Case in point is my county of residence, Arlington, VA. There is a thoroughfare known as “Columbia Pike” that goes through the southern part of the county (smallest county in VA, immediately across the Potomac River from Georgetown, DC) that is lined with old, ever so slightly “blighted” businesses. It’s really not that bad. The county board, which is controlled by liberal Demoncraps, has been working on a revitalization plan for Columbia Pike for the past three years. South Arlington is different from the more affluent, predominately white North Arlington. I live in south Arlington. Whites are a minority to Hispanic. You don’t hear English being spoken in my neighborhood much. Why I digress on race I don’t know - jus’ a lil’ background. Ahem, so as I was saying, this plan for Columbia Pike is the Arlington County Board’s WET DREAM. I attended a public hearing last year where some county officials were present, and they expressed some dismay that many business owners along the ‘Pike would not be interested in selling because the only inducement they could offer to these business owners was some kind of tax break or something if tney decided to sell. Well, you don’t have to be a genius to know that now they’re gonna just TAKE the property. Some of these business owners have been on the ‘pike for like fifty years. Many quaint old churches are along the Pike too. I wrote a letter to Senator George Allen last week advising him that we could reasonably expect eminent domain to be excersised in Arlington County.
The problem is that a very small group is who decides if there is a public benefit. No impartial third party gets a say. So, basically is just based on the OPINION of the county board if the taking is justified.
OK, I guess that’s it......
Skipper, I would completely agree if not for many of the basic facts of Berman and also Midkiff. Remember in Midkiff individual parcels not exceeding 5 acres were taken from private owners and then transferred to other private owners. This opinion was handed down in 1984. The lots in question in Kelo were not considered individually by the court. They decided it based on the ‘comprehensive development plan’ aspect. I can give O’Connor some credit for stating her opinion that each taking be considered individually, but that is also not how she treated Midkiff.
ztucka- I am not saying the abuse of the eminent domain privilege is ‘no big deal’. It is. I am just saying that this decision in reality lends almost nothing new to the game. There are some municipalities that will soon find this out the hard way, namely Freeport, Tx. There is language in both Midkiff and Kelo that specifically forbids the kind of direct transfer that Freeport wants to do. The same with Souter’s residence. Neither one of those is gonna happen.
Thanks guys for the excellent discussion. I feel I’ve made my point so will leave it at that unless you have something I’ve missed.
Posted by prairie biker
07/02/2005 at 06:29 PM
ztucka,
You live very close to me. I know the property of which you speak. Early on when this decision came to light, I expressed the same concern you do about a small group, the county board of supervisors, making the decisions. Arlington is no different than my town, and if the members of your board of supervisors are similar to the fools we have on our board, shady dealings will take place. But there is always that thing about citizen revolt happening. Sigh… It’s all pretty discouraging.
Posted by Phoenix
07/02/2005 at 06:53 PM
PB: I disagree on Freeport, TX. It will happen. If you follow the logical progression from Berman to Midkiff to Kelo, you’ll see that each step was a deliberate attempt to stretch things just a little bit further and they have succeeded so far. Why do you think they will stop there. Freeport will get its marina unless this is stopped now. Period.
Souter’s house is safe, though. That is a childish attempt at retaliation and will fail any judicial test.
Why run away now? It’s jsut getting interesting ....
Wow, Phoenix, I just though that if I wrote that down, that somebody would be living nearby!
Citizen revolt in Northern Virginia? Alas, I don’t think that’s very likey. Almost half the population around doesn’t speak English (much less own property - many of them are illegales), so they don’t even know what’s going on. The other (almost) half is sympathetic to the Gov.’s cause - aside from the few Democrat business owners along the Pike that might get their businesses taken.
‘Stoo bad that that thing with Judge Souter’s house won’t fly.
I wish we could get that asshole Jim Moran out of here - he’s our Congressman. Been stuck in there like a thorn in our side for a VERY LONG TIME. Last year saw a challenge from a more moderate democrap - my wife went and actually voted for they guy (the challenger) in the Democratic primary b/c you don’t have to register as a party member in VA (she is one of us, though) just to try and get somebody else, anybody else, as our rep. Didn’t work though.
ztucka,
I know Northern Virginia is not the place it used to be. Where I live, about 40 miles from you, is slowly getting your run-off of illegals and gang members. yeeech. Too bad,too, because my town was listed a few years ago as the Top Town in the U.S. Then everyone wanted to move here and soon enough, we’ll look like Manassas. Time to move.
Posted by Phoenix
07/03/2005 at 10:58 AM
07/01/2005 at 10:27 PM
