Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Finally, Some Justice for Kelo

April 29, 2009 by  

Finally, Some Justice for Kelo

Susette Kelo has finally received a little justice, just not her property.

You may remember Kelo, who battled the town of New London, Conn., all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court over the confiscation of her property through eminent domain. She lost her case, and ultimately her land, to a private developer that wanted to put the land to more productive (read generate more tax revenue for New London) use.

Inexplicably, the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of New London and the New London Development Corp. Never mind the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that bothersome clause that says, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

So what is Kelo’s justice? Though the case was settled in 2005 so far no development has appeared on the land. Reporters that have been there describe it as a sea of mud. Controversy over the court wranglings to essentially steal property from its rightful owners slowed things down, and a recession and credit crisis has, thus far, killed the project.

Meanwhile, that tax revenue that put dollar signs in the eyes of New Londoners hasn’t materialized. No ritzy condos or hip coffee shops have popped up. In fact, New London isn’t even getting the tax revenue it received before Kelo and her neighbors were run off.

Sometimes you have to revel in the small victories.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Finally, Some Justice for Kelo”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    I was wondering when we would see an article that deals with the Supreme Court and its vulnerability. Once the Supreme Court has been neutralized (yes, it will happen) life will get interesting in a hurry.
    I hope I am wrong, but it looks as though the Supreme Court may have lost its usefulness to the American people.
    So much for checks and balances. So much for the Constitution. So much for freedom.
    Do Americans really give a damn about anything?

    • http://h marvin rowe

      face it this country has gone to hell bt i think we can take itback get rid of the naysayers and the chcken hearts and tell the banks we want our money if you dont want give it back and stop raping us with you credit card rates and fees its killing us and these people that are juming ship to he other side form republican to democramp chicken shit there afraidthey ill lose and now they should when some fo this money ona get down to the litte guy like us peons like people who make 20.000.00 or less try to live on thatwith 2 people with all your bils thank you marvin rowe

  • Blaine Harding

    I thought all public officials had to take the oath of office. The oath is to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. I understand that to mean the
    written Constitution and should not be the Constitution as a Judge, Congressman,or the President choose to interpret it.

    The Mentor

  • Lawrence Leeds

    This is Justice and Just Desserts. It made me happy reading this article.

  • Emmit H.

    I AM AN AMERICAN, I DO CARE.ITS NOT JUST AMERICANS THAT’S DOING THIS SOME ARE YES AND SO IS MOST OF DEMOCRASSHOLES AND REPUBLICANS. IF I WAS TO BLAME ANYONE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THOSE WHO DEVELOPED THE WORLD SCREWUPS. IM NOT SURE OF THIS OBAMA AND HIS TEAMMATES AND ALL THOSE CARES ABOUT AMERICA. WILL AMERICA STILL BE HERE IN THE FUTURE?? TALK ABOUT FUTURE FOR OUR KIDS. I THINK THEY’RE GONNA HURT OUR KIDS NOT JUST IN FUTURE BUT FROM HERE NOW AND THEN. ACTUALLY WHERE ARE THE REAL AMERICANS THAT USUALLY DONT LET THIS HAPPENS??? MOST OF THEM PROBABLY BOUGHT THEM OUT.

    • richeyrich

      We are here and fighting with all our might to get those crooks out of office, but they act like they are above they law. They disobey the law, they laught at us. they have bought off the judges, etc. It’s hard to get the crooks out of office if they go behind the laws, make their own laws, and had people in their pockets. Fortunately, as or today, we still have the Voting System on our side. Hopefully that won’t change before November. BO is trying his hardest to make the Constitution a thing of the past.

  • John Johnsen

    Kelos’ and our problem is with the US Constitution. Once you insert a phrase like “without just compensation” the game is over. It becomes a matter of judgement not Right. It effectively cancels property rights – the right to use and disposal.
    The Supreme Court, any court, can and does decide arbitrarily and legally. It merely has to be satisfied with the word ‘just’. Until that is changed (via amendment) we all are ‘owned’ by the government because without property rights life itself is not possible. Think about it. They’ve just be ‘nice’ to us up till now.
    The Founding Fathers were not perfect.

    John Johnsen
    Verplanck, NY

    “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government”.
    Alexander Hamilton

  • http://sovereignstates.org Joel LeFevre

    The Kelo case should never have gone to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has no legitimate jurisdiction in cases involving State authority. This fact was emphasized by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1833, in the case of Barron v. Baltimore. Marshall emphasized that the Federal Bill of Rights was not intended to give jurisdiction over State issues to the Federal courts. It was intended only as a restraint on Federal power. (This was all the more significant considering what a notorious power-grabber John Marshall had been.)

    The basis for the high Court’s claim to jurisdiction is of course the so-called Incorporation Doctrine, a stream of 14th Amendment jurisprudence by which the Federal courts have arrogated nearly unlimited power to themselves. (So a group of amendments intended to protect the States from an overreaching Federal government have perversely become the very pretext for this overreaching.) Too many of us love to go along with this dangerous usurpation–when the results are to our liking, as occasionally they are. But what are the overall results?

    Well, in this case, the results weren’t so good. If the Supreme Court had stuck to its limited, delegated jurisdiction, the damage done by the Connecticut courts would at least have been confined within the boundaries of Connecticut. Now we have a doubly dangerous precedent set, upon which other State court decisions could be based.

    The one positive result to come out of it is that it woke a lot of people up, prompting movements to restrain the abuse of Eminent Domain within the several States (where such protections don’t already exist.) And that’s where the fight properly belongs. Beware of running to the Federal courts when State courts err. In the short run it may have a good result; in the long run it is bringing down a judicial dictatorship that could destroy the whole Republic–where five judges are the Constitution.

  • Loren

    When are you going to tell us about the fraud which IS the US constitution. THe fed government is defrauding the american people. When are we going to hear about that? When are you going to let us know that we are funding our own slavery through the fed bank?

  • richeyrich

    I Love to hear a story like that. Greed, it will bite every time. Maybe next time New London will think twice and get a signed contract before running someone out of their home. Shame on you New London Govt.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.