The Legacy of Kelo v. New London
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 10. 2013
- In 1999, the city of New London, Connecticut started developing plans for its run-down Fort Trumbull neighborhood adjacent to its glistening new Pfizer research facility. While many were excited by the plans for a mixed-use development that would hopefully resurrect this economically disadvantaged city, others were upset by the plans which called for forcibly removing those residents who lived there. One home owner in particular -- Susette Kelo -- refused to move and led the fight to save her neighborhood. Her struggles eventually led to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision in her case is perhaps the most controversial decision in the last few years and has resulted in a wave of state legislation to limit its result. A panel of experts analyze the decision and its significance.
Recorded on February 26, 2007.
Appearing: Panelists include Duke Law Professors Christopher Schroeder and Jonathan Wiener, as well as adjunct Professor John Hart ; introduction by Tom Metzloff.
Today is September 19th, 2019. The property sits empty.
Be very afraid of these academics who rely heavily on tax money funding these thefts common also at universities. The middle speaker (Wiener) tried to say stealing from the poor actually benefits the poor on a national level (but no real example). There are 2 definitions of Public Use. (a) Regular people think it's government ownership to be available for use by any member of the public on an equal basis. Public Use for real estate is the ONLY exception for Due Process. (b) The academics and SCOTUS have a different definition. Public Use is the list of ALL exceptions to Due Process of any right. Anything other than (a) is a felony. Many founding fathers warned of this slippery slope, so James Madison buried the poorly worded exception in the middle of the Bill of Rights. The public can throw these officials in prison anytime the public wants to stop the crime wave and urban evacuation. Most states have explicitly outlawed many of the fraudulent claims of the past. Like blight, tax base, jobs, economic development, affordable housing, urban renewal, dedicate a street, insurance for future water shortage, any reason you can imagine. By not prosecuting the politicians AND judges, we see incredible crime and mob violence in cities where politicians have committed the most flagrant crimes. But somehow the criminal mind sees the crime as a good deed, the victim as better off when victimized. I just keep on explaining how core principles affect reality. www.blairhawkins.net/
Hi Duke Law School
I’m a fan of your channel and a subscriber, and believe it or not, I’m going through an eminent domain case where the city of Inglewood is using ED to take my property to give to Steve Ballmer, the 5th richest person, for his new Clippers arena! Definitely not for public use because he’s going to make money off the tickets. Ballmer bought the Forum from Madison Square Gardens because the owner threatened to fight Ballmer for his use of eminent domain to take the forum. So Ballmer didn’t want to deal with the headache and bought the Forum off the other billionaire because he knew he could have the city use ED to take the rest of the property he needed from small property owners like us. I was going to start exposing this on social media and wanted to get your advice, since you have som much experience. Thank you ahead of time for any advice and help and looking forward to your next video!
★Awesome Report Thank-you!
tag yourself: i'm the guy carving up the bottom of his coffee mug with his car key 54:33
he is smarter than the other student commenting, which I do not understand what he is talking about (I go back to carving my mug)
AT 36:30 Jonathan Wiener asserts that one possible negative outcome had Kelo WON at the SCOTUS level that govts would simply step up their taking of private property and keep it in public ownership. This argument is fallacious for several reasons,
1. The taking must be clearly defined, even if as in the Kelo case, the project never materializes (of course the govt can always fabricate a reason,)
2. At least in NH, there is a constitutional amendment to prohibit taking for private development. Period. Even if the government does take property for an *actual* public use, they may not later transfer said property to a private party for a period of time, I think it is ten years.
Hello civics class from LSM :)
The takings clause of the 5th was a mistake, it was obvious it was going to be abused.
New London officials claimed to have a city with distressed communities. But when came to taking land, they chose to go to a a community and homes that were not distressed. That lie is at the heart of their crime.