PROPOSAL: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY

[ulTRAX]

I've long suggested here that the best way to fragment the Right is not to go the DNC path by moving to the Right... but to make proposals that have some appeal to the Right yet do not undercut Progressive values.

I think today's outrageous USSC decision on eminent domain offers such an opportunity. Despite that this decision was by "moderate" Justices, this decision targets any citizen who can not protect themselves from big developers. It puts one person's private gain above another's property rights. This SHOULD be a Progressive issue.

Think of the contrast: while the Right is playing its typical diversionary games proposing Constitutional Amendments to limit rights on gay marriage and flag burning... I believe Democrats must IMMEDIATELY propose an amendment to protect private property from eminent domain abuse.

[Mitt Chovick]

1. We already have the Fifth Ammendment!!!

Well we did before Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Kennedy gutted it.

[ulTRAX]

2. the 5th

Obvioulsy it no longer offers the protections we thought it once did. Just for those who don't know what the 5th says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment 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 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.

There's a legal discussion here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

[Mitt Chovick]

3. This was in no way public use

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "


A road is public use, a school is public use. Selling land to Wal Mart or some other rich developer is not public use.

Stevens et al just ammended the constitution.

Opinion of 5, law of the land, pretty cool, huh. (/sarc)

[ulTRAX]

6. I absolutely agree

I'd been following this case for some time and I can not believe the USSC ruled this way.

[Tamyrlin79]

4. I think this is a good idea.

I found it odd that I was siding with Renquist and Thomas on this one... And against Stevens and Ginsberg. Freaky, that.

We definitely need to seize this issue. We have been saying that economic populism is a "winner" issue. This is a big one that pits private interests against big developers. I think that this could be very big, because the people are not on the side of the Wal-Marts of the world.

[ulTRAX]

5. it's a no brainer

I may be pretty far to the left of most here but I not dogmatically so. I cherry-pick positions from all political traditions. Long before I matured into a Progressive if not a Leftist, I was pretty much an anti-authority anarchist... and some of that survives in new forms. Guess that's to say I have a libertarian streak.

This issue seems to be a no-brainer on two fronts... the first is to protect private citizens against big developers and corrupt/misguided government officials... but also it's a perfect wedge issue to use against the Right.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leyton]

9. Blame where blame is due.

So it was leftist justices. Then we need to clearly state that the party disagrees strongly with this ruling.

I was outraged too. It seems that to protect the individual from corporations, we now have to oppose government power when we had to use it before.

[drm604]

7. Yes, and it needs to be immediately!

The Democrats need to propose it and make a big deal of it before the Republicans.

[FreedomAngel82]

10. So let me get this straight

if you own private property someone from the government could take it away from you??

[tkmorris]

11. Well, that's not exactly new is it? (nt)

[onenote]

12. only for the past 217 years

onenote

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. We need a Constitutional Amendment to protect Constitutional Amendments

I propose #5a "No we really meant it." I too have been following this and I am in a complete utter state of shock and bewilderment.
I posted a rant in another thread. I never imagined that I would be strongly agreeing with Scalia and Thomas over anything.

Good lord! Well, we are now all officially serfs, working and inhabiting our land at the will of our lords and nobles until one or more of them decides they desire it in order to enrich the coffers of the hamlet (and themselves). If you live in nice older community in a swell location that might contribute greater taxes if a developer turned it into The Gables on the Green of the Point of the Marsh - watch out!!!

[ulTRAX]

15. Heaven forbid I agree with Scalia, Thomas, or Neal Bortz

I had had been following this case but and no idea how this decision would come out. I had already decided I supported the property owners. Yesterday Neal Bortz speculated about some town in Florida. What if a developer proposes that a golf course can make better "public use" of the land... and promises to bring in more tax revenue. Those property owners have lost what they thought was their constitutionally protected right to their property.

I don't care about USSC politics here... I believe those who decided this case have opened up a Pandora's Box.

[Walt Starr]

14. I'd support it and it doesn't matter who proposes it

If Durbnin opposes it, I'll vote for his opponent next year.

I'm that serious about this issue. Party labels be damned, this crap has got to go!

[ulTRAX]

16. shame the Right

I'd support a well thought-out amendment regardless of who proposes it. I'd like to see the Democrats support such an amendment not just to restore the constitutional protections we had until yesterday... but to shame the Right for their attempts to trivialize the amendment process.

[MadHound]

17. I'm with you on this friend, let us pre-empt the right,

And have push through such a CA. There is lots and lots of bipartisan anger out there over this ruling, and the best way to deflect this from the left is for the left to start pushing this amendment. I have only one Congressional member who is a Dem. but I will be writing all of them tommorrow proposing this very idea.

If we don't do this, we will all be corporate serfs, living on corporate land.