Here’s your sign

A disclaimer well earned by the Supreme Court

By Nick Martin
From the September 2005 Print Edition

As a fourth of the absolutely hilarious Blue Collar Comedy Tour, Bill Engvalls has made a living arguing that stupid people should wear signs that read “I’m stupid.” That way, he says, the rest of us would know who not to talk to. “Excuse me … oops, never mind. I didn’t see your sign.” Naturally, there are many ways one could earn these signs. For example, a friend of Engvalls earned one visiting him and his wife right before they moved. With a U-Haul truck in the driveway and boxes piled everywhere, this buddy came over and asked, “Hey, you moving?” The response: “Nope. We just pack our stuff up once or twice a week to see how many boxes it takes.”

“Here’s your sign.”

In the spirit of Engvalls’ routine, I’d like to deliver signs to five individuals who more than earned them over the summer. For granting local governments the authority to seize private property for use by other private organizations, Justices Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsberg: here are your signs. Allow me to elucidate.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” In the past, the “public use” clause has been interpreted to allow governments to seize land for the construction of roads, schools, prisons, and other projects that directly serve the community, including those that eliminate “slums” and “blight.”

In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, decided this past June, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether eminent domain authority allows local governments to seize private property for “economic development” projects managed by other private organizations. The case specifically involved nine property owners in New London, Connecticut, who refused to sell their property to the city, which wanted to clear the land for a resort hotel and other commercial space.

After the city failed to purchase the property, it used eminent domain authority to seize the land and transfer it to a development corporation. The property owners then sued the city, alleging that seizing their land and transferring it to a private company did not constitute “public use.” Kelo supporters interestingly included a wide range of groups from the libertarian Institute for Justice to the NAACP, AARP, and Southern Christian Leadership Conference. When those folks join hands, you know you’ve entered the political Twilight Zone.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that New London had the authority to seize private property and transfer it to another private entity if the purpose was “economic development.” Representing the majority, Justice Stevens wrote “in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.” In other words, the Court decided local politicians are qualified to determine when private property should be taken from one citizen and given to another.

This reinterpretation of the Constitution by the Court eliminates our country’s long-standing right of private property free from government seizure and reallocation for other private use. In dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that the majority’s decision “enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue … is for a ‘public use.’”

In addition to plainly attacking the rights of citizens to own and be secure in their private property, this decision exemplifies the arrogance liberal activists have in presuming that government intervention is matter-of-factly the right means of improving the lives of citizens. It furthers statism at the expense of those who lack political influence. As Justice O’Conner notes, “the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

The Founding Fathers give absolutely no indication that government ought to have the right to seize property for the purpose of attempting to spur economic growth and subsequently increase tax revenues. Claims that increased tax revenues necessarily benefit the public are entirely false as well. With this decision, the Court has succeeded in egregiously expanding the reach of government into our lives and has seriously diminished property rights.

Reaction to the Court’s decision has predictably been fierce, and in one instance, creatively vindictive. Shortly after the decision was announced, Logan Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, began petitioning the city of Weare, New Hampshire, for rights to the home of Justice Souter, claiming that “the city of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.” The proposed development is called “The Lost Liberty Hotel,” and it will feature the “Just Desserts Café,” among other attractions. The city board rejected Clements’ request, but community members have begun a ballot initiative drive to circumvent the board’s authority. For now, Justice Souter’s home probably just needs some redecoration … perhaps a nice wooden sign out front.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot