Conn. Gov. thinks Eminent Domain is "Boston Tea Party"

[hillbilly]

I've said that I really think this eminent domain thing is different because it literally effects just about everybody, no matter their politics, views on freedom, or if they like guns or not.

Here's more evidence.


From the Wall Street Journal's editorial today.


Subscription required, but here's the link anyway.


http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112173894316389100,00.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks


Homeowners in New London, Connecticut got a temporary reprieve last week when state legislators declared a moratorium on takings of private property while they consider how to revise the law on eminent domain. The state assembly could meet in special session as early as this month.

Call it the Kelo effect. A few weeks after the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London that local governments have more or less unlimited power to seize private property, Connecticuters aren't the only citizens who want to make sure they can't be evicted from homes and businesses in order to make way for private economic development. A grassroots movement has sprung up across the country.

It's instructive to watch how quickly politicians can react when they want to. In Connecticut, where Democrats control both houses of the state assembly, a Republican-sponsored bill to forbid the taking of private homes for private economic development failed as recently as three weeks ago. Yet last week Speaker of the House James Amann was quoted on the need for a law that "offers homeowners some peace of mind." Mr. Amann represents Milford, whose aldermen recently voted unanimously to prevent the city from using eminent domain to take property for private development.

As for Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, when we called her office a few days after the Kelo ruling, a spokesman talked about the need "to strike a right balance between property rights and economic development." Last week, Ms. Rell issued a press release calling eminent domain "the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party." This time, she said, "it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting; it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."

 

[GLOCK19XDSC]

From the article:

"As for Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, when we called her office a few days after the Kelo ruling, a spokesman talked about the need "to strike a right balance between property rights and economic development." Last week, Ms. Rell issued a press release calling eminent domain "the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party." This time, she said, "it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting; it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."


I suppose it never occurred to the esteemed Governor that the various out-of-control legislators and executives that pass those laws involved with eminent domain may bear some responsibility as well?

 

[GunGoBoom]

I suppose it never occurred to the esteemed Governor that the various out-of-control legislators and executives that pass those laws involved with eminent domain may bear some responsibility as well?

The good governor is right. Legislators are *supposed to* pass unconstitutional laws in our const. scheme - that's what legislators do - pass whatever the people want. This crazy idea works and works well, if and only if the check & balance of the judiciary upholds its duty under the constit. system, to strike those laws passed by the legislators which are unconstitutional. It is indeed 99.9% on the backs of the robed tyrants, who have shirked their duty to hold the legislative branch in check. Good on her!

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Legislators are *supposed to* pass unconstitutional laws in our const. scheme - that's what legislators do - pass whatever the people want.

Ah, right. That's why they swear those funky oaths to respect the Constitution... Because they're supposed to be ignoring the Constitution. :banghead:

 

[GLOCK19XDSC]

I don't know about the various Constitutions of all States, but from the US Constitution, Article VI:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Edited to add:

From the Constitution of the State of Connecticut:

"SEC. 1. Members of the general assembly, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take the following oath or affirmation, to wit:

You do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that you will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof; and that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, the duties of the office of...........to the best of your abilities. So help you God."

 

[GunGoBoom]

Well, ok, Brett and Glocker, they're not *supposed to*, but in reality, if you look at decades of SCOTUS jurisprudence, the rule is quite clear. Legislators, for good or ill, will eventually pass a bunch of crap that is unconst., and it is the function of the judiciary to provide the check and balance, and strike the laws. So they're not *supposed to* - you are correct, but they are quite clearly *expected to* as a practical matter, on a regular basis, and the courts at one time had little to no compunction about striking down their nonsense. But in the last 30-40 years, the Scotus has become more and more of a rubber stamp to congress and state legislators, abdicating their oaths, which though worded the same, are far more important oaths to keep. So yes legislators in theory ought not to violate their oath, but we all know it's gonna happen, and that is why the judiciary should know that as the last bastion of constitutional order, they must not compromise their principles or be political...but alas, they do.

 

[GLOCK19XDSC]

GunGoBoom,

I agree with you for the most part.

But, look at who does the appointment and confirmation of Justices to SCOTUS. I think we get a rubber stamp because that is what is intended by the aforementioned appointers and confirmers. IOW, in the past, Justices have been appointed based on their willingness to conform to an agenda rather than their willingness to interpret and judge IAW constitutional principle. Also, note that, currently, the trend seems to be to attempt to neuter entirely those who do not conform to the various agendas of Congresscritters.

So, I see the root problem as past POTUS and Congresscritters with power pushing their agenda.

Hopefully, POTUS, et al. gets it right this time.

Edited to add: BTW, I found the answer to my original question, and it is, Yes, she thought of it:

“Defining the right reasons for using eminent domain is properly the task of the Legislature. That is one reason why I have supported Representative Ward’s call for the General Assembly to convene a special session to discuss this issue. Public hearings are the first step to establishing those critical definitions. We should do this right – but we should not let the matter drag on for months.”

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?Q=296184&A=1761

Hopefully, that will translate into positive action rather than just meaningless posturing in order to perpetuate her place at the trough.

 

[El Tejon]

Boston Tea Party? Well, I'm not throwing Ruth Mellencamp Ginsburg in the harbor!

 

[ravinraven]

"Well, I'm not throwing Ruth Mellencamp Ginsburg in the harbor!"

Good thinking. That old harbor is polluted enuf already.

I just hope that the noise we are hearing from some folks who are doing something about the Property Piracy Acts won't make most folks think "it's being taken care of." We all have to participate in this one. I'm gonna be working on our county gov't right off. And I'll visit a few, maybe all, of our town gov'ts this fall. Hopefully, as I go along I can recruit a committee of pro liberty activists.

rr