Grassley, Sotomayor and eminent domain
July 16, 2009 5 Comments
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee attempted to press Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on a variety of issues that were of interest to me. It was Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa who used a portion of his 30-minute allotted time to ask about eminent domain.
Grassley wanted to know when it is appropriate for the government to seize private property. The Des Moines Register’s article states that Sotomayor “steered away from Grassley’s question.”
For someone like me who has strong and passionate opinions about the government grabbing up private land, I appreciate that Grassley went into his line of questioning about a 2005 Connecticut case where the Supreme Court ruled against overturning a state law that allowed local governments to take private land to generate economic development and property taxes. This ruling set the stage for land grabs in Iowa.
Even with the Iowa Legislature attempting to strengthen Iowa’s eminent domain law the real threat of private land being taken for land development in Iowa is currently happening in Clarke County. Other Iowa counties have citizens who live under the threat of land grabs as well.
On the same day that Grassley was quizzing Sotomayor I heard a radio program that caught my attention. After doing some research I did find information about what is happening in South America. I share a portion of the article here.
Chavez’ so-called back-to-the-land movement calls for the redistribution of land — increasingly properties that the state has taken over in what officials term a “rescue” or “recuperation.”
“I say to all who say they own land: In the first place, that land is not yours. The land is not private. It is the property of the state,” Chavez said last month on an episode of his weekly television show broadcast from rural Barinas state, where he grew up.
Felicia Escobar, a lawyer and consultant on land issues who used to work for the Agriculture Ministry, said land redistribution has failed across the continent because farmers are not given incentives to produce and governments have not provided adequate credit or technical assistance. She said that in Venezuela, the new farmers are not even given title to the lands they occupy. In some cases, they are grouped into communes and expected to work as a unit, with little stake in their plots. “That is socialism,” she said. “It did not work before, and it does not work now.”
I realize that some reading my post will think it is a stretch to relate that what is happening in a far away place like Venezuela will ever happen in the United States of America. To you I say yes it could. In my wildest imagination I did not think that our President and others would be making such progress to distribute the wealth of Americans. Wealth to some is money. Wealth to others is their homes, their land, and their way of life.
Charles Grassley has concerns about the altering of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
I join him in his anxiety about the government’s ability to seize private property. There seems to be so many issues to care about, be concerned about, and keep on the front burner of opinion. Easy use of eminent domain to seize private property certainly is one of them.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090715/NEWS09/907150359/-1/archive
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=80976
Pingback: News Grassley, Sotomayor and eminent domain | Web 2.0 Designer
I don’t believe that it is a stretch. We now have 23 “czars”, unelected and unconfirmed by the Senate. Who’s to say Obama won’t appoint a “Land Czar”?
Imagine this: 1. Farmer struggling to pay his note to the bank. 2. Taxpayer money given to farmer to pay his creditor. 3. Federal government now owns the land. 4. Obama, or Land Czar, fires the farmer. 5. Federal government now redistributes the land.
All this debate, and in some cases downright bickering about Sotomayor is getting disgusting. Yes! It is extremely important to appoint qualified judges to any bench, expecially the Supreme Court. Right! It is terrible to have a judge on any bench who feels that empathy, and a diverse background are more important qualifications than being unbiased and just.
However, if we had not established, in the last 100 years or so, this bogus principle of judicial precidence, and instead returned to the basis of determining all judgements based on legislative law, and its basis in God’s Law \ natural law, we wouldn’t have to worry about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. The only damage they could do is mess up a few individual court cases that they happen to preside over and hand down judgments for.
It is time that we the people begin to elect Executives who have a backbone, and a grounding in history, and Constitutional leadership. The idea of Judicial Review has been so misconstrued in the past century that we now have an entire branch of government that is above the law, and no longer accountable to it, nor to the people! It is time to start telling judges “Thanks for your opinion, but you are wrong. We are going to continue to apply this law as it was written by the legislature, unless the people tell us to change the law! “
Does anyone else get the feeling that the government will soon own everything?
I agree DannyBoy i have a sick gut feeling about the direction things are going.