As published in the

Pasadena Star-News - July 7, 2005

San Gabriel Valley Tribune - July 7, 2005

Whittier Daily News - July 7, 2005

Here's an issue all Americans can agree upon

by

Gerald Plessner

Why must every public issue now be framed as a conflict between conservative and liberal values?

Recently the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision so contrary to the Constitution's words and its authors' intentions, that it could provide an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to rise up together in protest. Wouldn't that be a pleasant surprise?

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that government can use its power of eminent domain to take property from rightful owners at a price established by a court and give or sell it to others for profit.

Eminent domain is established by the 5^th Amendment which states that, "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."(Emphasis added)

Prior to the Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London, "public use" meant that property could be taken only for use by the public. Examples include removing a house from the route of a highway or the site of a new or enlarged government building. In this case the Court ruled that the state could take the land and then transfer it to a private entity for use in redeveloping a blighted urban area.

That private entity will benefit financially from the acquisition of that land and the City of New London will benefit by improving its downtown area and increased tax income from the new businesses to be developed.

While community development may be an important function of government --- and I believe it is a valuable one --- it has never before been right to take property from one citizen and then transfer it to another citizen or corporation.

The sanctity of private property was one of the hallmarks of the new American democracy. It is difficult to imagine how the authors of the Constitution could have expected eminent domain to be used to transfer property to private interests.

It is also wrong because, in most cases, the taking is from poorer, less powerful people at a depressed price, while the giving is to wealthy recipients who then use or sell the land at a much higher price.

Anyone with a grade school understanding of American history and how the Founders felt about property and freedom should be distressed by this decision. It is certainly not a "liberal vs. conservative" issue.

That is why the thoughts of conservative pundit George F. Will were so surprising. In ending an article on the subject, he wrote, "Liberalism triumphed Thursday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government."

Does Will really believe that liberals, who constantly combat government encroachment on private lives and freedoms, want to take private property to be sold to commercial interests? Must people like Will frame every issue as a conflict between conservative and liberal values?

Here is what two justices who usually disagree with each other said in their dissenting opinions:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. 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."

Justice Clarence Thomas said the decision was "far reaching and dangerous. The court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."

If there was ever an issue to cause all Americans, liberal and conservative, to unite in protest, this is it!

About the author: Gerald Plessner is a Southern California businessman who writes regularly on issues of politics and culture. He would be pleased to hear from you and may be contacted at gerald@geraldplessner.com.