|
Supreme
Court revokes right to property
Chad
Koskie
Macomb,
Ill. (U-Wire) — Three things all
Americans hold very dearly to them are
their rights to life, liberty and property.
It is the foundation of the American
Dream.
But, the Supreme Court decided maybe the whole idea of having an inalienable
right to property wasn’t such a good idea after all.
In a landmark decision before the end of its term last week, the Supreme Court
ruled it was legal for a local government to seize private property if the
land is going to be used for “public benefit,” according to the
Chicago Tribune.
This runs counter to almost everything this country was founded on. This is
worlds away from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that
no private property shall be “taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Public use and public benefit are two totally different things. Public use
means fire departments, utilities, schools — land for the public to use.
That makes sense and doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for abuse or unfair
practice. Public benefit is left up to local politicians and is totally open
for abuse.
It doesn’t matter that your land may have been in your family’s
possession for generations — if some money-hungry politician decides
a shiny new Walgreens or Lowe’s would have greater benefit, you would
have no choice in the matter.
Some bureaucrats will decide what “fair value” is for your house,
and you would have no choice but to take it.
That doesn’t sound like something that should happen in the United States.
Don’t we have the ability to decide the best use for our own land?
“Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive
possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property,” wrote
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas (which you can read
for yourself at www.supremecourtus.gov).
“
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.”
Instead of currently crafting a totally unnecessary amendment to ban flag burning,
the Republican-controlled Congress should be crafting an amendment around this
abominable ruling.
You know, the Republicans, whose party used to be about individual rights and
small government. Is an amendment to prevent flag burning the best they can
do?
I don’t agree with flag burning in the least, but I can tell you this:
I would rather have a group of hippies in my yard burning an American flag
than city officials on bulldozers making way for a brand new strip mall.
This column was originally printed in the Western Courier at Western Illinois
University. |
