Words
by George M. Cohan, played by the US Air Force
Band.
You're a
high flying flag,
And
forever in peace may you wave.
The
home of the free and the brave.
'neath
the Red, White, and Blue,
Where
there's never a boast or brag.
Should
old acquaintance be forgot,
Keep
your eye on the grand old flag.
As we approach the celebration of the 4th of
July, and show the colors and play patriotic
songs such as, You're A Grand Old Flag, I am
very much dismayed with the recent Supreme
Court's decision to elasticize the Fifth
Amendment, which allows governments to take
private property for "public use,"
through "eminent domain." At issue
is the scope of the Fifth Amendment re
"eminent domain."
In
Jones v. Walker, 2 Paine, 688, Fed. Cas. No.
7, 507, the court held that the right of the
sovereign to dispose, in case of necessity,
and for the public safety, of all the wealth
contained in the state, will be called:
"eminent domain." Eminent
domain is the highest idea of property
remaining in government, or in the aggregate
body of the people in their sovereign
capacity. (Let's hope your City
Commissioners are honest and that some are
not out to line their pockets with your hard
work!) But in Kelo, et. al. v New
London, Conn., several homeowners in a
working-class neighborhood filed suit after
their city officials told them their homes
would be razed to raise a hotel and offices.
I don't see the words" "health
club and riverfront hotel" in the etymology
of the Fifth Amendment. Their
officials countered that this private
development served a "public purpose of
boosting economic growth that outweighed the
homeowners' property rights."
What concerns me is the tremendous scope
this loop hole gives greedy individuals.
When I contacted
Representative Bill Nelson's office, he
explained to me that he is sponsoring a
Bill No. S 1313 in
Congress
We
pay money to the state for the right of
owning our home, this is called
"taxation" with which we are
all very familiar. In paying our taxes the
citizen contributes his just (?) share to
the expense of the government under which he
lives. But when our properties are
taken against our will,
"confiscated," we are forced to
surrender our homes to the
"government/public," something
above and beyond our true proportion for the
"public benefit." In other
words, a compulsory sale to the state.
You can either smile and say, "I am
honored to be part of providing roads,
construction for our defense, trade and
travel. It hurts to leave my
home-sweet-home behind, but hey, this is for
the benefit of mankind, so why should I be
selfish? What kind of person am I in
not thinking of the good of others?
Move my furniture? Find another
expensive house? It is for the good of
those who Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, the
only voice of reason, called "citizens
with disproportionate influence and
power," the
altruistic commissioners, some without a
brain in their head, mayors, et. al.
Here in Florida, the fraud capital of
the USA, where unscrupulous local
contractors, some who have even served
time in jail, can defraud the elderly out of
their homes and savings.) Me worry?
Nah, I have faith in my local, state and
even federal government. Perhaps I
should place more faith in my realtor
because I can
move in to ten different houses over the
years and this could happen to me ten
different times! What's to be neurotic
about? All we need is a crystal ball
so that we know what will be constructed in
the future. There are people here in
south Florida being thrown out of their
apartments with just two days notice!
That even gives them time to pack their
toothbrush.
If
I were less cynical about this whole matter,
I would say it is so nice to be patriotic.
Let me be unromantic for a moment and call
myself a realist. I have seen
unfairness in progress, and know money rules
in our capitalist society. I have a
reputation for fighting for justice as an
activist, but just like Don Quixote, I have
learned the hard way, that swiping at
windmills is a very expensive matter, both
in financial and emotional costs.
I
am also amazed at what the illustrious
supreme court justices are thinking.
This is just one more example of power
corrupts. Somebody must have slipped
some nasty juice in their morning coffee
because to slap property owners in the face
like this was just plain mean-spirited.
I cringe every time somebody burns the flag,
that is just damn bad manners, but I don't
think we need a new constitutional amendment
banning flag burning, because if misguided
youths want to show their
"freedom" by doing so, I can
always turn off my TV. But to hand some greedy
politician the right on a silver platter to
bulldoze my home does keep me awake at night
because I have no recourse. Or do I?
The
fact that our freedom can be lost via a
"democratic political system"
makes me think the Chinese are not so far
behind. Look over your shoulder.
Here they come! Anybody for Chinese
take-out? No MSG please, it gives me
migraines just like the headaches I am
getting from pondering that we should
get more money, power, and influence fast,
or bow down to Big Brother!
Thank you, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner for
your dissenting vote and your comments about
"disproportionate influence and
power;" and for your enlightened
statement: "any property may now
be taken for the benefit of another private
party, but the fallout from this decision
will not be random.... The beneficiaries are
likely to be those citizens with
disproportionate influence and power in the
political process, including large
corporations and development firms."
All
I can add to this true statement, is that I
am grateful we do not have an idiotic king
or ridiculous queen who could rule for
eighty years, instead, we can remember those
who hurt us and vote them out of office at
the next election. You know - the
power (?) of the people. Either you
use it, or lose it!
On
the other hand, if they stick to the real
meaning, (as was intended in the Fifth
Amendment) for the development of schools or
to revitalize blighted areas, which could
also improve your property values and
increase the city's tax base, without undue
pressure from avaricious developers, (this
is what Justice O'Conner meant by
"disproportionate influence,") -
oh, how we know the meaning of that here in
Florida. Talk about money under the
table!
HAPPY FOURTH! With
all its faults, it is still the greatest
country and I love it!
Alinka Zyrmont
The Honorable
Bill Nelson (D)
The United States
Senate
Washington, D. C.
20510
Tel. 202 - 224 -
5274
The following is
Sen. Bill Nelson's (Dem.) statement
on eminent domain:
"Under eminent
domain, governments can force the sale of
private property for critical projects, like
roads. But yesterday's Supreme Court
ruling gives them broader power to seize
someone's land, if bureaucrats determine
it's for the public good. Florida may
have additional protections in its
constitution, but the Court's decision still
seems too far-reaching, and may require
further strengthening of our property
rights. If our homes aren't safe from
the government, then nothing is."
BILL NO. S. 1313
109th CONGRESS
1ST Session
S.
1313
To protect homes,
small businesses, and other private property
rights, by limiting the power of eminent
domain.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 27, 2005
Mr. Cornyn introduced
the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
A BILL
To protect homes,
small businesses, and other private property
rights, by limiting the power of eminent
domain.
Be
it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT
TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Protection of
Homes, Small Businesses, and Private
Property Act of 2005.'
SECTION 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The protection of homes, small
businesses, and other private property
rights against government seizures and other
unreasonable government interference is a
fundamental principle and core commitment of
our Nation's Founders.
(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April
6, 1816, the protection of such rights is
'the first principle of association, the
guarantee to every one of a free exercise of
his industry, and the fruits acquired by
it.'
(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution specifically provides
that 'private property' shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation'.
(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides
an essential guarantee of liberty against
the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by
permitting government to seize private
property only 'for public use'.
(5) On June 23, 2005, the United
States Supreme Court issued its decision in
Kelo vs.. City of New London, No. 04-108.
(6) As the Court acknowledged, 'it has
long been accepted that the sovereign may
not take the property of A for the sole
purpose of transferring it to another
private party, B,' and that under the
Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain
may be used only 'for public use'.
(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a
5-4 vote, that government may seize the
home, small business, or other private
property of one owner, and transfer that
same property to another private owner,
simply by concluding that such a transfer
would benefit the community through
increased economic development.
(8) The Court's decision in Kelo is
alarming because, as Justice O'Conner
accurately noted in her dissenting opinion,
joined by the Chief Justice and Justices
Scalia and Thomas, the Court has 'effectively..delete(d)
the words 'for public use' from the Takings
Clause of the Fifth Amendment' and thereby 'refuse(ed)
to enforce property the Federal
Constitution'.
(9) Under the Court's decision in Kelo,
Justice O'Conner warns, '(t)he specter of
condemnation hangs over all property.
Nothing is to prevent the State from
replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton,
any home with a shopping mall, or any farm
with a factory'.
(10) Justice O'Conner further warns
that, under the Court's decision in Kelo, '(a)ny
property may now be taken for the benefit of
another private party', and 'the fallout
from this decision will not be random.
The beneficiaries are likely to be those
citizens with disproportionate influence and
power in the political process, including
large corporations and development firms.
As for the victims, the government now has
license to transfer property from those with
fewer resources to those with more.
The Founders cannot have intended this
perverse result'.
(11) As an amicus brief filed by the
National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, AARP, and other
organizations noted, '(a)bsent a true public
use requirement the takings power will be
employed more frequently. The takings
that result will disproportionately affect
and harm the economically disadvantaged and,
in particular, racial and ethnic minorities
and the elderly'.
(12) It is appropriate for Congress to
take action, consistent with its limited
powers under the Constitution, to restore
the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment
and to protect homes, small businesses, and
other private property rights against
unreasonable government use of the power of
eminent domain.
(13) It would also be appropriate
for States to take action voluntarily limit
their own power of eminent domain. As
the Court in Kelo noted, 'nothing in our
opinion precludes any State from placing
further restrictions on its exercise of the
takings power'.
SEC. 3. PROTECTION
OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
(a) In General - The power of eminent
domain shall be available only for public
use.
(b) Public Use - In this Act, the term
'public use' shall not be construed to
include economic development.
(c) Application - This Act shall apply
to--
(1) all exercises of eminent domain
power by the Federal Government; and
(2) all exercises of eminent domain
power by State and local government through
the use of Federal funds.
I would like to thank
Senator Nelson's staff for their cooperation
in writing this article. If you would
like to support the Senator's efforts, please
contact his office:
REMEMBER: if you
do not USE your civil rights, you LOSE your
civil rights. Get involved.
Speak out!
Alinka Zyrmont
