|
|
|
Subject:
The Betrayal of Susette Kelo
wjhii
8/3/2005 9:26:40 PM
|
The Betrayal of Susette Kelo
By William John Hagan
The Houston Home Journal, Perry, GA
08/03/2005
The Fifth Amendment 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.? This means that the government cannot take your property without due process and can only do so in exchange for a payment of ?a fair and reasonable amount? for such things such as a public works project. This protects citizens from the forced confiscation of their land. This concept of natural property rights was carved in stone until the recent Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London. This case came about when the city of New London decided to seize the waterfront homes of Susette Kelo and her neighbors to use the land to ?build a hotel, condominiums and an office building to complement a new Pfizer Pharmaceutical plant?. Incredibly, the Supreme Court allowed this action to stand and the result has been the virtual elimination of the people?s right to sovereignty over their own private land.
The Kelo decision was such blatant violation of private property rights that I expected Congress to take immediate action. However, the only things to come out of Washington were toothless legislative proposals and empty statements opposing Kelo. Clearly, someone would propose an amendment to the Constitution that would restore our Fifth Amendment right to private property?
When no such action was forthcoming, I contacted Sheridan Watson, Senator Johnny Isakson?s Deputy Press Secretary, to find out if the Senator had any plans to amend the Constitution and restore our founding fathers? intent. Ms. Watson made it clear that the Senator had no such plans but was co-sponsoring a bill that should deal with the problem. The Senator shared his reasoning for not supporting an amendment restoring eminent domain by stating, ?It is not necessary given what we are doing in Congress legislatively?the legislation we're proposing will provide a much more immediate solution."
The Senator?s office did produce a piece of legislation which, in fact, restricted the use of eminant domain by the states but only when federal funds were involved in the actual development site. Since the question at hand involved the theft of private property by government and the transfer of that stolen property to private developers, the federal funds? restriction was practically moot. In fact, the bill that Isakson is co-sponsoring does nothing to address the actual subjugation of our natural private property rights for private use.
When I pointed this out to Senator Isakson office, he confirmed to me that ?our bill seeks to address projects that involve federal funds?. So, basically, Isakson?s legislation is an empty threat that provides no real protection for private property. For Isakson?s bill to have teeth it would simply have had to add a clause preventing all federal highway funds from being spent in states that allow the seizure of private property for non-public use. So why are politicians unwilling to confront this issue in an imperative fashion?
The answer simple: Money. The primary beneficiary of the Kelo project is Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, a company that has handed over $2.8 million in political contributions since the 2000 election cycle. Now, this is the type of money that an average citizen like Susette Kelo cannot compete with when asking to be ?heard? by her political representatives. It is, therefore, not surprising that Congressmen such as Isakson, who received $5,200.00 from Pfizer?s Political Action Committee, are only too happy to present the public with empty rhetoric rather then tough legislation.
Letters to the editor can be e-mailed to: hhj@evansnewspapers.com
William John Hagan can be visited on the web at: link
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
