The Supreme Court of the United States, in another attempt to totally bewilder court watchers, and civil libertarians has said it isok for governments to seize private property for other private needs.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
That is a large leap from the intent of the constitutional framers who said this in the constitution with emphasis on the important parts.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It used to be that they'd only take your property if they were putting in a road or something. That was bad enough. Now if Donald Trump wants to put a casino on your property, and you don't want to sell, the government can seize your land, and then sell it to Trump. Their basis for the ruling is that the increased public good comes from increased tax revenue to the government. That is not public good, that is for the good of government.
Article comments
1 - Maurice
Good points on both issues.