FOR SHAME SUPREME COURT

Amendments to the Constitution
Article V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb: nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Supreme Court has wiped away one of the most basic rights of property owners in the US in its decision today to grant New London CT the right to take over private property and place into the hands of other private owners.

The gradual process of eliminating private property ownership began in 1954 with the Supreme Court's decision to allow local governments to condemn slums or other blighted properties for the propose of redevelopment.

The homes in the New London case or neither slums nor blighted. They just happen to be in the way of a proposed development. Some happen to be on the waterfront and the owners have refused to be bought out.

These judges will live in shame for their decision: Justice John Stevens, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice David Souter, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and Justice Stephen Breyer. Below is the basis for their decision:

New London officials "were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference," Stevens wrote. "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Justice Sandra O'Connor gave the following dissenting opinion:

"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power," she wrote. "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 -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the
process."
The effect of the decision, O'Connor said, "is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

There it is in a nut shell, the assenting judges have managed to change the wording of the constitution from "for public use" to "for public purpose".

This burns me up. It means that my home and property in the future can be taken away from me if some developer and the government get together and decide to build some new strip mall!!!!

For shame Supreme Court.

Quotes from the Washington Post

Update:
From American Thinker Outrage:

Justice Thomas wrote a brilliant dissent. His words are worth quoting:

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.

Update:
Foxnews

Home owners in eight states already have legisaltion barring eminent domain proceedings from occuruing for economic reasons.

Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

Time to get busy. I for one will be contacting my state representatives to ensure that legislation to bar eminent domain proceedings for economic reasons is initiated and passed. Time too fight for what is right.