It would appear to me that the final nail is being driven into the
coffin of the old Republic.
"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of
every citizen in his person and property and in their management." --
Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
Supreme Court Upholds State Eminent Domain Rules
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday that people who lose
state lawsuits claiming the government improperly took their property
cannot count on federal courts for help.
Land rights is a major issue at the high court this year, and so far
the justices have made it tougher for people to win lawsuits claiming
that local and state laws amount to an unconstitutional "taking."
The biggest of three cases dealing with government authority to seize
properties will be decided in the next week, before the Supreme Court
begins a three-month break.
In Monday's decision, the justices ruled against a historic San
Francisco hotel that wanted to convert rooms - previously designated
for permanent residents - to accommodate tourists.
The city had restrictions on hotel changes, as part of an ordinance
intended to preserve housing for the poor, disabled and elderly.
When the San Remo Hotel was ordered to pay $567,000, it sued in state
court and narrowly lost at the California Supreme Court in 2002. Then-
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown supported the
hotel and wrote a strongly worded dissent, used by some senators in
opposing her recent elevation to a federal appeals court.
"Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery,"
she wrote. "Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance
the stature of the thieves, it
only diminishes the legitimacy of the
government."
There were no harsh words in Monday's 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that
found the 62-room hotel could not pursue a federal case because state
courts had already addressed all the issues.
"This is a big victory for local governments," said Nicole Garnett, a
Notre Dame law professor.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in a rare admission, wrote in a
concurring opinion that he and his colleagues may have made a mistake
20 years ago when they told people in such property fights that they
must exhaust state court options before filing federal suits.
Rehnquist, who has cancer and is expected to retire soon, seemed to
encourage a challenger to step forward and give the Supreme Court an
opportunity to reconsider.
Joined by three other conservative justices, Rehnquist said, "Further
reflection and experience lead me to think that the justifications
for
its state-litigation requirement are suspect, while its impact on
takings plaintiffs is dramatic."
Eric Claeys, a former Rehnquist clerk who is now a law professor at
Saint Louis University, said state court fights in takings claims can
last for years. In some states, it would be quicker and better
strategy to go straight to federal court, if the Supreme Court allows
it, he said.
The ruling was the second in a land rights case. Last month, the
Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii did not overstep its authority in
putting caps on the rent paid by dealer-run gas stations, part of an
effort to control gas costs.
The one pending land rights case will determine when local officials
may take people's homes and businesses through eminent domain to make
way for economic development projects like shopping malls. The
government is likely to win that case too.
The Monday case is San Remo Hotel v. City and County of
San
Francisco, 04-340.
© 2005 The Associated Press
|
![]()
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
