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
Source for the following: http://www.emdo.blogspot.com by Roger Kolb 2/3/05 with discussions with Jim Campano.
In 1954, "in the Supreme Court decision Berman vs. Parker." A Pandora's box was opened, one that our founding fathers would have abhorred, he continued, "when the court changed one little word in its definition of "eminent domain." It changed the phrase "public use" to "public purpose."
And a few years after that, "public purpose" became "public benefit." "Public benefit" has meant that a local government can take property away from one private home or business owner and give it to another."
Source for the following: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
The federal courts have not restrained state and local governments from seizing privately owned land for private commercial development on behalf of private developers. This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment