In June of 2005 the Supreme Court shocked and frightened land owners across America by ruling that private property can be seized by the government and sold to private developers in order to generate tax revenue and spur economic growth. That case, Kelo v. City of New London, opened the floodgates for local governments to use eminent domain for private gain. The Supreme Court's decision triggered an immediate response, and the following year the issue of eminent domain appeared on 12 state ballots – making it the single biggest ballot issue of the 2006 election. The ballot initiatives were successful in 10 states, giving residents in those states varying degrees of protection from eminent domain abuse. Other states have followed suit and passed similar laws. However the problem has not gone away.
In Baldwin Park, California city officials plan to use their eminent domain power to seize more than 500 homes and small businesses. The land will then be sold to the Bisno Development Company – a wealthy and politically connected private developer. The developer will use the 125 acres for projects that will generate more tax revenue. The Baldwin Park proposal is perhaps one of the worst examples of eminent domain abuse in the country (unfortunately it is not the only example).
In Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Historically, the government's right of eminent domain has been invoked when land is needed for a distinct public purpose – such as a highway, public school, hospital or military base. The words "for public use" and "without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment were meant to provide safeguards against excessive, unpredictable, or unfair use of the government's eminent domain power. As a result of the court's decision in the case of Kelo v.City of New London, however, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
What happened in the city of New London, Connecticut was not an isolated incident. Similar scenarios have played out in communities all around the country. The city of New London was looking for ways to improve its economy. In 2000, the city approved a development plan that would put in office buildings, a hotel, and a health club near the waterfront. When they approved the plan, however, the city gave the developers power to condemn houses whose owners remained unwilling to sell. The city argued that it would be for public good to develop the city and encourage tourism and create jobs, and for that reason, those homes could be seized - and the Supreme Court agreed.
In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized the court's decision to expand eminent domain to include such takings. She wrote that, "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded." Such a broad interpretation, she argued, could include just about anything.
The Supreme Court has given local governments the green light to confiscate private property for profit. Private homes and small businesses can now be bulldozed and replaced by upscale retail and housing developments, office buildings, hotels, casinos and other redevelopment projects that are owned, not by the public, but by private individuals and corporations. Such abuse of power cannot be what the founding father's had in mind when they drafted the constitution.
[Editor's Note: It is important to point out that the Bible clearly establishes the importance of private property. In fact, God instituted the concept of private property in the Ten Commandments. Are we not told "thou shalt not steal"? Also, in several of Jesus' parables he indicated his respect for personal property and private gain. Likewise, there is nothing in the epistles that contradicts the right of private ownership and profit.]
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
I think you miss the point. The article is about eminent domain and not the tirade that you listed. How about one subject at a time. This is something a lot of us that own property are concerned about.
Slow down and take a breath.
There is no fascist police state. Your hatred is spewing out all over. Click here to reply to this post
THE UNITED NATIONS AGENDA
Posted On: 01/17/08 12:43:31 PM
Age 38, MI
I concur with the three other posts I read in response to Chuck Missler's article. I have read and enjoyed some of his articles and info resources on his web site, you just have to be cognisant of the fact that we as Christians are
over-zealous in our desire to "pin the tail on the Anti-Christ" so to speak. Don't forget that
Chuck was way over the top in the whole Y2K farce, suggesting we all grab guns and freeze
dried food and head for our shelters cause civilization as we know it is over!
NOTHING HAPPENED !!
I HAVE to recommend a book or two here:
Hope of the Wicked , The Master Plan to Rule The World by Ted Flynn I could not put it down! The author documents the slow gradual progression of the collapse of the USA from within, all orchestrated by the New World Order secret societies and Super rich.
He uses their own actual quotes to demonstrate the not so hidden agenda of the
Globalists. Click here to reply to this post
Eminent Domain
Posted On: 01/16/08 04:50:27 PM
Age 61, MO
The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution, not shredding it. When I see how the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government have been bought by Big Business, I am not surprised to see that the Judicial branch has fallen to them as well. George Cancilla Click here to reply to this post
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNIVERSE
Posted On: 01/16/08 02:13:45 PM
Age 64, OH
There is a case of eminent domain told about in 1 Kings 21. The National government ( King Ahab) wanted the vineyard of Naboth because of its location (close to the palace). The King asked Naboth to sell him the vineyard and the King would pay Naboth whatever it was worth or even give Naboth a better vineyard somewhere else. The King was willing to pay but he just wanted the vineyard that was close to his palace. Naboth refused because the vineyard was a inheritance of his fathers from the Lord. Ahab was depressed about this and his wife Jezebel found out and promised Ahab, she would get this vineyard for the King. Jezebel did as she promised by having men lie and accuse Naboth of cursing both God and King; and Naboth was stoned to death. But King Ahab was killed in battle just as the Lord had said,even though he disguised himself. Jezebel was thrown from the upper floor of her own palace by her own servants and then ate by dogs. These two are now paying for their eminent domain scheme for all eternity; and Naboth is in his reward for all eternity for putting value on the gift that God had given him. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Eminent Domain=Eminent Danger? Please. Keep ingnoring the Real threats.
Posted On: 01/16/08 10:09:01 AM
Age 36, CA
Of all the topics, you choose to write about eminent domain. How laughable! You write not a word about the eminent danger of a fascist police state being fortified all around us by our “Christian” President.
You write nothing of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
You write nothing of The Military Commissions Act, which authorizes the suspension of habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal permanent residents, in U.S. custody. It authorizes the President to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge by designating them enemy combatants or unlawful enemy combatants. It authorizes the President to determine what constitutes torture. It authorizes the use of evidence obtained by coercion. It authorizes the use of hearsay in trials. It authorizes retroactive immunity for U.S military and intelligence officials for abuses that occurred at sites such as, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, Bagram, and secret CIA facilities. The definitions of rape and sexual assault are narrower than under international law and have higher thresholds for proof.
You write nothing of PDD 51, which gives the President, no matter if it is Bush, Giuliani, or Clinton, dictatorial power, bypassing Constitutional safeguards.
You write nothing of the HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 recently passed by the House. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.
Chuck, when Bill Clinton was President, you used to expose his evil. From Mena, Arkansas to Ron Brown, from selling nuclear secrets to China to his phony war in Kosovo. Now that we have a Republican in the White House who claims to be a Christian, you say nothing of the evils this President has committed and is establishing. Shame on you, Mr. Missler! I used to have a lot of respect for you.
You write about the eminent danger of eminent domain yet you write and speak of nothing of the eminent danger to our constitutional republic being systematically dismantled by our “Christian” President. Click here to reply to this post
Woodrow Kroll, David Jeremiah,Sean McDowell, Josh McDowell, David Barton, Carl Kerby, Frank Harber, Kerby Anderson, and the Branson Family Reunion DVD Set! This is a $74.95 value for only $34.95! FREE worksheet with purchase!
Russell O'Quinn, Steve Saint, Dr. Michael Youssef, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Bob Lepine, Star Parker, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, and the Branson Family Reunion DVD Set! This is a $74.95 value for only $34.95!
