|
|
I have to give Senator Bill Frist credit for voicing his
concern over this matter! Perhaps this court ruling will at least shed some
much-needed light on the erosion of private property rights in this country.
Maybe people will finally wake up and take notice.
Sally
As you may have heard...
The United States Supreme Court issued an opinion yesterday that has raised
great concern among private property owners across America.
Understandably so.
In this case, known as Kelo vs. New London,
the Court held that local governments can seize private property and give it to
private developers -- if it is determined that those development projects also
serve a public purpose.
The concern here -- as voiced by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent --
is that "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now
vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner."
Indeed, I share that concern.
The U.S. Constitution -- as provided under the Fifth Amendment -- gives
government the right to take private property for public use after paying the
property owner just compensation (eminent domain).
And, make no mistake, without this power it would be very difficult to build the
roads, schools, and parks we all need and use.
Yet there are many important questions that we need to consider...
How can we be sure that a public purpose
is served, when government transfers property from one private owner to another?
Does this decision give governments too much power over private property owners?
What assurances do Americans have -- those who work so hard to buy their own
homes -- that government will not take those homes away?
Will this decision give undue advantages to politically connected developers and
wealthy individuals?
Private property has long been a cornerstone of the Constitution and our
American society. Indeed, our economy is based on the principle of private
ownership of property.
It was John Adams who said:
"Property is surely a right of mankind as
real as liberty."
Any infringement on that right cannot be undertaken lightly.
We should give careful consideration to these questions and explore the
practical implications of this decision.
Bill Frist
|
