Equal Justice for All
Does the law really apply to everyone? If that is the case, Logan Clements wants to apply the concept of eminent domain to Justice Souter. "Eminent domain" is basically the government's power to expropriate, or seize, private property for government use. Eminent domain is mentioned in the Constitution, although it is not called "eminent domain" proper.
The Fifth Amendment states, "… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Just compensation is usually the market value for the land or property in question, but "public use" is the important phrase to be defined in the Amendment. Public use has been redefined over the years to include everything from "economic development" to "blight." In short, any person's private property can be redistributed if the government thinks it has a better use for your property.
The latest Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London upheld the state's right of eminent domain over private property by a 5-4 decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote in the dissenting opinion that "The 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."
Right about here is where Clements comes in. He is asking the city of Weare in New Hampshire to use its power of eminent domain to give Clements the title to Justice Souter's land in an act of economic development. Clements plans to build a hotel and a eatery entitled, "The Just Desserts Café."
In essence, Clements is trying to turn the law back upon itself. Souter voted to uphold eminent domain but will he accept the actual application of his ruling if he is personally impacted? Right now, the city of Weare is holding the high ground. As the Weekly Standard reports, many disagree with the Kelo decision and eminent domain in general, but refuse to ever abuse the power of eminent domain as an absolute rule. Clements remains undeterred and is currently trying to sway the five-man city council to his position by helping to elect citizens to the council who agree with Clements's own ideas. The critical vote is coming up in March, but whatever the result, Clements vows that he is in for the long haul.
Frankly, I think Clements is accomplishing one helpful purpose – raising awareness. He has certainly informed me, but I also think that he picked the wrong justice. The small town seems unwilling to oust Souter simply to make a point. Eminent domain remains an issue that needs to be addressed. Whatever you may think about the actual proposal, Clements is certainly on the right track to bring the issue into the limelight where it belongs.
Note: Clements own website is here and here you can find more information and critiques on the "Lost Liberty Hotel."
The Fifth Amendment states, "… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Just compensation is usually the market value for the land or property in question, but "public use" is the important phrase to be defined in the Amendment. Public use has been redefined over the years to include everything from "economic development" to "blight." In short, any person's private property can be redistributed if the government thinks it has a better use for your property.
The latest Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London upheld the state's right of eminent domain over private property by a 5-4 decision. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote in the dissenting opinion that "The 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."
Right about here is where Clements comes in. He is asking the city of Weare in New Hampshire to use its power of eminent domain to give Clements the title to Justice Souter's land in an act of economic development. Clements plans to build a hotel and a eatery entitled, "The Just Desserts Café."
In essence, Clements is trying to turn the law back upon itself. Souter voted to uphold eminent domain but will he accept the actual application of his ruling if he is personally impacted? Right now, the city of Weare is holding the high ground. As the Weekly Standard reports, many disagree with the Kelo decision and eminent domain in general, but refuse to ever abuse the power of eminent domain as an absolute rule. Clements remains undeterred and is currently trying to sway the five-man city council to his position by helping to elect citizens to the council who agree with Clements's own ideas. The critical vote is coming up in March, but whatever the result, Clements vows that he is in for the long haul.
Frankly, I think Clements is accomplishing one helpful purpose – raising awareness. He has certainly informed me, but I also think that he picked the wrong justice. The small town seems unwilling to oust Souter simply to make a point. Eminent domain remains an issue that needs to be addressed. Whatever you may think about the actual proposal, Clements is certainly on the right track to bring the issue into the limelight where it belongs.
Note: Clements own website is here and here you can find more information and critiques on the "Lost Liberty Hotel."
posted by Matt Pitchford at 13:00
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home