FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE BY THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF TENNESSEE
Supreme Court Ruling Destroys Concept of Private Property
June 24, 2005
Cookeville, Tennessee
The Libertarian Party of Tennessee (LPTN) condemns the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo et al v. City of New London as being an outrageous travesty of justice, cruel, and just simply wrong.
The 5-4 ruling, issued on June 22, 2005, declares that local governments have the authority seize private property against the owner’s will in order to allow some other private organization to use the property for “economic development” purposes. The 5 majority judges were John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Bryer.
Samuel Adams, often called the Father of the American Revolution, once asked, “Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent?” James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, stated, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”
This Supreme Court ruling stems from a case in New London, Connecticut in which some commercial developers wanted to purchase property to build commercial facilities, including a health club, offices, and a hotel complex. But some of the property owners didn’t want to sell their homes at any price, and the developers just wouldn’t take “No” for an answer, so they resorted to using force. The developers went to city officials, and the city declared that the property would be taken from the unwilling property owners and transferred to the commercial developers, at a price that the city deems to be “just”.
The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution only permits governments to take private property (with just compensation) for public use. LPTN Chair Alicia Mattson says, “It takes very little common sense to see that this property seizure is not for public use. It is very clearly for private use and the personal financial gain of the commercial developers. How is it that we take people who throw common sense out the window, call them intellectuals, and appoint them to the highest offices in the land?”
Mattson continues, “These five Supreme Court justices have just declared to all that they do not understand the most basic requirement of a free society – the concept of private property. And after this ruling, perhaps there is no such thing as private property. This ruling says property should be owned only by those who can generate the most tax dollars with it. Our country’s founding documents state that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right of mankind. If it makes me happy to live in the house I bought with my own money, enjoy the grape vines and rhododendrons I’ve cultivated for years, sit on my porch swing and enjoy the sentimental value of the family residence, that’s my right to do so. If it makes you happy to spend your time in investment ventures to generate personal wealth, then that’s your right, and you can use your private property to do that. But to say that your desire to generate wealth supercedes my right to live in a house I rightfully own, is to say that the right amount of money can strip me of my inalienable rights. Apparently our Supreme Court no longer believes that all men are created equal. It has declared that generating tax revenue for the government coffers is more important than my inalienable rights.”
The 5 majority justices explained that the seizure qualifies as “public use” because it will create new jobs and result in increased tax revenue. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, as one of the 4 dissenting justices, properly recognized that no private property is safe from such reasoning. O’Connor wrote, “Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Mattson suggests, “No doubt there is some commercial venture that would generate more jobs and tax revenue than does the private residential property of these 5 Supreme Court Justices, or the Clinton Presidential Library."
Mattson warns, “Any time you hear the phrase ‘economic development’ from a politician, you know they’re preparing to raise your taxes and violate your rights. How does it feel to know that you will get to keep your private property only with the approval of your city or county officials? Many Republican voters are angered by this ruling, too, but don’t forget that 3 of these 5 justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Now more than ever, you need Libertarians on your city councils and county commissions.”
|
