The Fifth Amendment states that private property can be taken for public use only with just compensation.
Homeowners in Connecticut went to court after "being told they had to sell their homes so pharmaceutical giant Pfizer could build a new research plant." The Supreme Court ruled yesterday (5-4) that it was constitutional for these private homeowners to be forced to sell their homes so the private industrial group could build things there, because it was for the purpose of "economic gain."
The majority opinion said, "Quite simply, the government's pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties... Any number of cases illustrate that the achievement of a public good often coincides with the immediate benefiting of private parties." In other words, it will benefit society. It's for the greater good.
This is outrageous! The Supreme Court has basically ruled that you can be forced to give up your private property if somebody else wants to build something on it that will make more money. Now, how many homeowners make money on their property? Not many. Houses are for living in. That means that any commercial business of any type is going to produce more "economic gain" than your house is producing right now. If I'm understanding this ruling correctly, that means that right now any business owner could come to your house and say, "Sell it, because I want to build a shop right here. You have to do it---the Supreme Court said it's constitutional because it's for economic gain." That's obviously not right!
But the problem is not with the Supreme Court justices. The majority actually supported the wording of the Constitution. If "public use" is interpreted as any commercial business, then a businessman is upholding the Constitution by taking away private property for public use.
The problem, then, is with the wording of the Amendment itself. "Public use" is too vague. There is an obvious difference between the government forcing people to sell their homes because they really need to build an airport or a highway or a school somewhere---that is a legitimate case of sacrifice for the greater good---and a private business forcing people to sell their homes. That's going too far.
The Constitution needs to be changed. "Public use" needs to be defined.
Edmond the Hun
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I heard this on the radio today. Basically the courts are looking for more tax revenue (cuz they're so good at spending it). *gag* But as for any commercial building randomly appearing on your doorstep demanding your land, I think the land zoning protects alot of people. If you're surrounded by "housing land", as in, your section or neighborhood, etc. is designated for private use, I think you're pretty safe. Especially in subdivisions already surrounded by stuff. It's the people in places like Wentzville that have lots of open acres. They're the ones that are going to be losing out. The trailer park near my house got bought up because it was borderline commercial zoning. Otherwise I think they could've stayed.
Also, the guy on the radio was saying that state governments are allowed to modify the law ~ I mean, they can choose to make it stricter and more defined if they want to. So what we have to do is demand our MO government to, as you said, define "public use." I'm not sure if that's a petition or something else...but yeah, we can still have a say in it if we want to. The trouble is I doubt anyone with enough power will attempt to fight this.
There was also a phrase I thought you would like to hear:
"A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take it all away." Or something like that. It made me think of all the authors and such who have written political works about this sort of thing. I guess that's a call to us to write more Edmond. If only there was a cure for this procrastinating bug...
-Sanguine
p.s.
I wish I could put you on NBC or CNN. My power is limited, sorry.
Post a Comment