High Court Affirms “Eminent” Expansion of the Stealth Cartels
The Supreme Court has ratified and sanctioned the ever-expanding Stealth Cartel partnerships between Big Business and their comrades in collusion, States’ Government.
The Court’s recent ruling in Kelo et. Al. v. City of New London et. Al., affirmed for the first time, a state or local government’s authority to seize its’ citizens’ non-blighted private property, for the express purpose — not of building a new bridge or wider road, but rather, to give that private property to another private citizen – albeit in most cases a Large Corporation or Real Estate Development Partnership with whom the State has decided to enter into business; all under the guise of “eminent domain” and to “boost the local economy”.
This perversion of the long-established concept of eminent domain only affirms what StatesOnTheTake.com has been bringing to the attention of the general public, the media and the legal community throughout the past year; that being the ongoing establishment of “Stealth Cartel” partnerships between Big Business and States’ Governments whereby Big Businesses have begun to use the inherent authority of their comrades in collusion – State and Local Governments as their preferred tool to bully Citizen Consumer and unfairly undercut competing small business competition, through the government’s legislative authority and the perverted use of eminent domain.
The four dissenting justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor), recognized the vast perversion of the doctrine of eminent domain which this ruling represents. In their respective dissents, Justice Thomas emphasized the degradation in personal property rights this ruling represents, while Justice O’Connor warned that the ruling will allow state and local governments to seize any property, on behalf of the government’s partner –any corporation or private developer, in order to hand the seized private property over so that they may develop the newly created location for a profitable private business venture. The obvious return for the State or local government officials which see fit to take its’ citizens’ land and hand on behalf of Big Business is obvious – that’s right – nice sized donations during next election cycle, and the cycle after that, and the cycle after that.
The fundamental broad brush which the Court used to justify its’ ruling is frightening, as Justice Stevens relied on past high court rulings which gave wide latitude in the use of eminent domain when “promoting economic development,” noting that the project in question was expected to create jobs and increase tax revenue. Justice Stevens and his four brethren however, failed to address the fact that in all likelihood, any conversion of a private homestead to any business could by the very nature of its conversion, be merely expected to create jobs and increase tax revenue. Further, no litmus test, beyond the mere expectation of economic benefits was set forth in the Court’s ruling.
Justice Kennedy, the fifth and deciding vote, attempted to lay some ground rules, however vague and undefined, by stating that while judges reviewing challenges to property seizures should presume that local officials acted reasonably – he attempted to qualify this proviso by stating that the court’s should make sure that any such seizures did not merely reflect favoritism towards developers. Justice Kennedy, and the prevailing justices failed to provide any guidelines to the lower courts on how or what to look for regarding this warned of “favoritism” to developers.
The high Court’s ruling is not without irony, as the Court stated that citizens should look to State Governments – the very partner to these Stealth Cartels and comrades in collusion with Big Business – as the sole hope for additional protection from the implementation of loss of private property rights to Big Business’ Stealth Cartels, through the passage of laws through the respective state legislatures.
The high Court’s affirmation of the ongoing deterioration of the Citizen Consumers’ property rights, coupled with its’ ironic referral of the Citizen Consumer to look to his or her State Government for actual relief and protection, only further affirms the need for the involvement of each and every independent business person and Citizen Consumer to join StatesOnTheTake in its’ fight to Take Back State Government from the Big Business Stealth Cartels which are multiplying each day, threatening to destroy this country’s free market system.
Take Back Your State… SGA
June 29th, 2005 at 3:43 am
Strong language should be drawn up immediately to be put into state constitutions at the next election.
My suggestion would be to ensure that Jobs nor tax revenue be factors that Can’t be considered because its arbitruary crap.
In the face of power plants, roads and such put a minimum buyout rate of 7 times property value to prevent holdouts and long drawn out court proceedings. Also ensure those who wish to fight for their property are not screwed twice being paid below market value after a court orders the sale/taking of the property.
In the case where the property will be turned over to a corporation of any kind for development shares to the original land owner (retained ownership) shall be granted to the effect of 20% of the corp value divided by the property owners.
Upon failure of any public works or abandonment by the government land ownership is reverted back to the original owners families.
July 5th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
I am outraged by the Supreme Court’s property ruling. What can we do???? I want to get involved.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:25 am
It seems to me that there is another side to this decision that is just as sinister. Here in rural PA our local, county and state governments have been attempting to limit what a landowner can do with his own property for years. Thanks to programs like PA’s “Clean and Green” we have very little rural land that can be developed affordably. Now, if a private landowner who’s property is not in C&G decides he wants to subdivide some of his land and develop it but the local government wants to preserve the “rural character” of the area for the public good the local government (in our case it’s the Township Supervisors) can file for adverse possession. They can even wait until after all the surveying and required engineering studies are done but before the land itself is touched, thus potentially bankrupting the rightful land owner, “just compensation” or not. It’s not unusual for some of our old farmers around here to develop a part of their land to fund their retirement, but now the supervisors can bankrupt them. I can’t imagine our nation’s founding fathers would have approved.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Your “founding fathers” had a very convenient view of private property. When the Pilgrim Fathers first tried to settle, the local “Indians” who viewed land as belonging to the tribe, not the individual, let them have land upon which to sow their crops.
In the first winter - for which the newcomers were irresponsibly unprepared - all but two of the women and many of the men and children died. It was the Indians who came to their aid and prevented the whole colony being wiped out.
Yet a few years later these same “founding fathers” were affronted when their saviours wanted some of the land back for their own use. They used firearms and extreme violence to “drive the savages off our land.” Note that: “our land.” (and who were the “savages”?)
“Trick the weak and kick the poor and never give a sucker an even break” has always been the American way from the very beginning.
“Founding fathers would not have approved?” They started it, Heidi. (Good site, though. How do you get paragraph breaks in here?)
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 am
[…] platform upon highlighting the various sweat-heart deals and Stealth Cartels between these Comrades of Collusion, which have over the past decade, far exceeded the realm of big tobacco, and continue to slant the […]