Seivom, tiny young teenie movies and tiny

Eivom, film not another teen movie and film

He looked bright and clean by the representatives of Cowperwood to secure a seat in the purchase.

That’s a mill, my friend to abandon the seas, in order to give him.

https://ssl.capwiz.com/usatoday/bio/userletter/?id=248&letter_id=199190241&content_dir=congressorg

Sorry it took so long to respond. The Post editorial on “Taking New London” was interesting for a number of reasons. First was the claim that “Traditionally, the courts have shown great deference to legislatures as to what constitutes a public use.” That depends on one’s time horizon and one’s definition of “traditionally.” There was a time when courts examined the issue of whether a proposed use was indeed a public use, but that was replaced by the doctrine that all that was necessary was that “the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose,” which held in effect that if a public body (even one of the sort in the New London case, a “private, nonprofit corporation”) undertook the confiscation, it was therefore a public use, even if it was going to be turned over to a private firm, such as General Motors. The New London case is even worse than most, however, because it is not a case of a public use, i.e., a use to the public, but a case of a set of politicians trading in one public for another, which they assert will deliver to them greater tax revenues. That is what happened in the 1981 Poletown case, in which private homes, businesses, and churches were taken from their owners and the land given to General Motors to build a car factory. That case was unanimously overturned in 2004 (see http://www.ij.org/private_prop....._04pr.html ) by the Michigan Supreme Court.

It is not the case, contrary to the Post’s editorial, that “The takings clause was meant less to restrain government than to ensure that it pays fairly when it infringes on private property.” It is very much about ensuring that state power not be used to sacrifice the interests of some to the interests of others. Furthermore, when the public use restriction is not invoked, and only claims for just compensation are made, the opposition (and I would suspect that would be true of the author of the Post’s editorial) steadily resist compensation. Note, for example, the outraged tone in the Post’s news coverage of Oregon’s Measure 37, which requires compensation to long-time property owners who have been deprived of uses of their land.

There is a reason that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads as it does: “nor shall any person be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Were the writer of the Post editorial correct, it would read “nor shall private property be taken without just compensation.” But it doesn’t. The language specifies that a justified taking must be for public use, not for just any use, and to define public use as “defined by a public body” renders the term otiose, since it is presupposed that takings by government are by public bodies, so that the words “for public use” would serve no function whatsoever. And that would be a very strange principle of interpretation.

I’ve been swamped with projects but have just printed these out and will read through them. (There was a problem with the second link, but I figured it out; it should be: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....Feb27.html . I’ll post a response by Sunday night.

Cheers,
TGP

Also, this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....b27_2.html) mentions a new Oregon law, but has an interesting line: “The law, in fact, says nothing about the rights of neighbors.”

These two words roughly translated as “obvious right” can only mean the right of the people to own property and to be secure in their person and home.

The constitutional reference most pertinent to claims made in the name of corporate entities is found at Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

OTHERWISE, the terms of the RICO Act grant Ms Kelo THRICE the fair market value of her property in compensation for its loss.

My remarks about writing to lawmakers was directed mainly to local lawmakers (city council members and the like), where opposition to eminent domain is likely to have some effect.

I know plenty of people on Capitol Hill who insist that letters make a big difference. They don’t respond to each letter individually, but they are put in stacks (pro/con) and counted and the results are reported to the legislative assitants and the members. That’s done for a reason, because politicians figure that for every letter writer there are lots of others who agree but who didn’t bother to write, and also that people who do bother to write are likely to be influential in some circles back home. I am not aware of any academic literature on the topic, however.

RL