|
Contributors
Chuck DeVore- Contributor
Assemblyman Chuck
DeVore represents 450,000 residents of Orange County
California’s
70th Assembly District.. He served as a Reagan White House
appointee in the Pentagon from 1986 to 1988 and was Senior
Assistant to Cong. Chris Cox. He is a lieutenant colonel in the Army
National Guard. Chuck’s novel, CHINA
ATTACKS, sells internationally and has been translated
into Chinese for sales in Taiwan. [go to DeVore index]
 Property
and the Imperial Judiciary
Judges give more power to government...
[Chuck DeVore] 6/27/05
After Thursday’s 5-to-4 United States Supreme Court decision
in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (with the soon-to-retire
Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices O’Connor, Scalia
and Thomas in dissent), no one’s property is safe.
What the
Supreme Court did, in the words of Justice O’Connor,
was to hang “the specter of condemnation” over all
property. She wrote, “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.” She added, “Who
among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive
use of her property?”
The issue the Supreme Court grappled with has
to do with the U.S. Constitution’s 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment closes
with the phrase, “…nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.” Public
use has always been thought to be for cases when a government
uses its powers to take private land to build a road or dam.
Sadly, the liberal majority of the court decided
that public use was more broadly defined as “public purpose.” The
public purpose definition allows private property to be taken
from one private party and be given to another to enhance economic
development. For example, when a city or redevelopment agency
decides to condemn a church so as to erect a big box store in
its stead to generate more sales tax revenue – land is
condemned and taken from one private owner so that another private
party can make better use of it.
In criticizing the majority for dumping the Constitutional
principle of individual property rights Justice O’Connor warned that
the liberals on the court were handing “disproportionate
influence and power” to the powerful and rich.
What can we do? First we need to strengthen state protections
against the abuse of eminent domain. A good place to start would
be to support the proposal by state Senator Tom McClintock to
amend the California Constitution to restore the original meaning
of private property rights.
Based on my reading of our California Constitution,
this may be fairly simple as the right to acquire, possess
and protect
property is mentioned in our state Constitution’s second
paragraph! (See below – these words are themselves a modification
of the preamble to The Declaration of Independence.)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty
God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings,
do establish this Constitution.
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and
have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. tRO
copyright
2005 Chuck DeVore
|
