Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RLC on Eminent Domain Ruling

Expand Messages
  • westmiller@aol.com
    From: Dave Nalle dave@nalle.net ... O Connor is scathing on the literal interpretation of public use , but Thomas puts it in the libertarian context of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Dave Nalle dave@...
      > Thomas has a particularly good argument in his dissent
          O'Connor is scathing on the literal interpretation of "public use",
      but Thomas puts it in the libertarian context of private property
      rights and founding principles.
      >Are you an RLC member, Ken?
          Ken has been the RLC Coordinator in Maine and was elected
      to the state legislature, with our endorsement, last year. I do
      hope he posts the text of his bill.
          Sen. David Shafer is the RLC Coordinator in Georgia, who
      is on a state Senate Committee reviewing legislation passed
      last year, to see if it needs to be expaned (below).
          We have several other elected officials (local and state)
      who may already be proceeding with legislation.
      From: John David Galt <jdg@...>
      > I intend to start, or join, an
      effort to qualify an initiative for the
      > California ballot to make
      private property a constitutional right.
          I agree that state-level action is the way to proceed, although
      a successful California Initiative won't get on the ballot until a
      year from now. We should work with Tom McClintock.
          Making a big stink about the Supreme's ruling may temporarily
      raise the ire and temper, but there won't be another case to allow
      reversal for years.
          Boycotts may be fun and easy, but they aren't likely to have
      any influence on a large corporation like Pfizer ... even with a few
      irate stockholders who might make a superficial stink at the
      next annual meeting.
          What I find interesting is the "spin" of the decision as anti-
      big-corporations. That draws in the left, but the issue is really
      the imposition of *government* power to violate property rights ...
      no matter who might benefit.
      During the 2005 Legislative Session, the State Senate passed Senate Bill 86, authored by Senator Jeff Chapman (R-Brunswick), which protects private property rights from abuses of eminent domain.  The purpose is to prevent the exercise of eminent domain for transfers of condemned property to private developers, corporations, or other private entities to increase tax revenues or for economic development.  In light of the Supreme Court decision, the Committee on Assignments felt the need to study SB 86 further to determine what state powers remain to protect the rights of private property owners.

      Appointees to the committee include Senator Chapman; Senator Bill Heath (R-Bremen); Senator Johnson; Senator Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta); Senator David Shafer (R-Duluth); Senator Dan Weber (R-Dunwoody); and Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams (R-Lyons).  Senator Chapman will chair the committee.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.