SECOND SUPREME FACES EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION

[David S]

SECOND SUPREME FACES EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION

Jul 26, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

by staff reports

The Supreme Court’s controversial decision regarding “eminent domain” has resulted in the potential confiscation of another Justice's property - Justice Steven Breyer.
First it was Justice David A. Souter’s who was faced with removal of property in the wake of the Supreme Court’s surprising decision that eminent domain can be used to confiscate people’s homes in order to raise more tax revenue (among other reasons) on grounds of “eminent domain.” Now a group of New Hampshire citizens plans a Constitution Park on 167 acres in Plainfield, NH owned by Justice Breyer. The Supremes in favor of the controversial expansion of eminent domain are Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and Souter – and this means that at least two of the five had their property publicly targeted.

In an e-mail to Free-Market News Network (FMNN), one of the groups organizers, Mike Lorrey announced he will appear on New Hampshire Public Radio's "The Exchange" tomorrow at 10 am (EST) (July 27, ’05), to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent eminent domain opposite two attorneys representing the developers and the municipal association, respectively. FMNN has previously reported on plans to confiscate property from Justice Souter – first announced in a press release from Freestar Media LLC which proposed to build a hotel in Weare, New Hampshire on the land currently occupied by an old farmhouse owned by Souter. Freestar Media claimed it planned to build the hotel with a café in partnership with the local government because a hotel would generate more tax revenue than a home.

Reached by phone, Lorrey confirmed tomorrow's radio program and added that a successful petition drive had already taken place in Weare to place the confiscation of Justice Souter's property on the ballot early in 2006. Lorrey confirmed that "heavy pressure" had already been placed on Weare's town government to block the Souter "taking" - necessitating the petition effort. "It wasn't hard to gather signatures," he said. Lorrey predicted the petition would pass next year and that Souter would have to go to court to try to stop it. "Breyer will face the same scenario," he said. He also pointed out that the ultimate result of the eminent domain attacks on the two Justices would probably be to generate some sort of political action within the New Hampshire legislature to minimize potential takings within the state.


It is perhaps not surprising that New Hampshire is hosting eminent domain challenges given its reputation as a fairly libertarian region and the ongoing success of the “free state” movement which has seen up to 5,000 or more individuals and families settle there in order to build a critical mass of voters who could proceed to roll back some of the more onerous laws, regulations and taxes that states passed in the last 100 years. Lorrey is active in the Libertarian party and New Hampshire's Free State project. He is also a computer programmer.

[Everett]

As far as I am concerned, they aren't above or immune to the actions they make. Therefore, if their decisions backfire in the long run, I wouldn't shed a tear for them.

[Speed of Sound]

As far as I am concerned, they aren't above or immune to the actions they make. Therefore, if their decisions backfire in the long run, I wouldn't shed a tear for them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Emsworth]

He doesn't think that something is right just because he finds something constitutional. If, before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, a Justice declared that slavery was constitutional, should he consequently have been enslaved?

[Everett]

He doesn't think that something is right just because he finds something constitutional. If, before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, a Justice declared that slavery was constitutional, should he consequently have been enslaved?

If a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling that affects the country as a whole (everyone), he might also eventually become affected by said ruling, whether for good or bad. I would not demand that the justices who ruled in favour of this (in my opinion) unwise decision have their private property seized, but should such an event occur, I would not personally find anything wrong with it; they made the ruling, now they need to accept and abide by it.

[Gabu]

Well, obviously we don't want judges to make blatantly unconstitutional rulings because they don't fear the consequences of doing so.  However, we also don't want judges to make blatantly unconstitutional rulings because they fear the consequences of not doing so, as in Emsworth's example.

Basically, I feel that if a judge is affected in a legitimate way by a ruling that he or she makes, that's perfectly normal and is to be expected, but that we should not go out and blatantly punish a judge for a ruling that we didn't like, as is obviously the case here.  The judiciary should not be afraid to make an objective ruling on something because they fear retribution for having made an unpopular decision.  If the judiciary can be blatantly threatened and strongarmed into doing what other people want them to do, we might as well not even have a judiciary.

[muon2]

This propsal for Breyer's property misses the point of the decision. If the acquisition is to create a park, then it falls under "public use" as acceted by all nine Justices. At least in Souter's case the proposed taking was for the economic development of a hotel which is the subject of the Kelo decision.

[David S]

Personally I believe the court was wrong in the Kelo v. New London decision. But wether you believe it was right or wrong its hard to argue that whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.

[AkSaber]

Personally I believe the court was wrong in the Kelo v. New London decision. But wether you believe it was right or wrong its hard to argue that whats good for the goose is not good for the gander.

^^^^^ Great statement!!

[A18]

So long as just compensation is provided, private property can be taken.

It is impossible for Congress to, as a valid exercise of its powers, take property for anything but public use. However, this is not the case with the states.

The Constitution does not limit takings to public use, it simply acknowledged the nature of the federal government. To apply the fifth amendment to the states, we must simply ignore the word 'public,' just as we do 'Congress' when interpreting the first amendment. That is the rational way to do things.

The irrational way is to keep the word public. In that case, the states can take private property for commercial use without just compensation.

[Joe Republic]

I have a solution to this.  Why don't the Supreme Court Justices just stop owning properties in New Hampshire?  The place clearly seems to be a problem for them.