Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor 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 )
The part that sticks in my craw are the words “Without Due Process of Law”. This is where the Supreme Court Justices have turned their backs on the Bill of Rights and We The People of these United States. Due process of law sounds fairly simple and yet that is what has been thrown away in many of the modern interpretations of law.
I will get away from this business of Eminent Domain for a little and take up yet a different side of the Due Process of Law concept, that of Traffic Laws. I was a street cop for twenty years I wrote my share of traffic tickets. Simple as they are there were basic points of law on each one that were necessary for the State to prove up a case in court. If only one of those points of law were missed then there could only be one finding, not guilty. It didn’t matter; say in the case of running a red light, how badly the information sounded as evidence; if only one point of the case was improperly documented or missed then the case was lost.
One of the points of law required that the violation was observed by a commissioned law enforcement officer who was commissioned by that particular jurisdiction to enforce those traffic laws; fairly simple, and yet if I observed someone run a red light in the City of Hunter’s Creek which was adjacent to the City of Houston, I could not issue a citation for that particular violation. I could be a witness to the violation; but I could not act in the capacity of a law enforcement officer because I was not empowered by the City of Hunter’s Creek to enforce their laws. The same will hold true to these traffic camera tickets that so many municipalities are installing or have already installed. The sticking point of law involved which these folks are so willing to overlook is the fact that no commissioned law enforcement officer initialized the legal process and instead that process was turned over to a machine.
Maybe as a collective society we have come to the point where, for such a minor issue such as a traffic ticket, we are willing to forego that one point of law in the overall interest of “community safety” and general welfare of the budget; however, by doing so we also must recognize that we are a country dependent on the rule of law and that without the protection of each and every point of law the individual’s loss of his right to a fair trial has now been corrupted in the name of efficiency. The traffic ticket issued, regardless of how accurate and detailed the points of law are recorded by the camera are missing a very important point of law, that being the observation a commissioned law enforcement officer with the trust and authority to act on behalf of the community which has been provided by that community for their benefit. He/she must be able to communicate his observation and his commission's validity as part of the elements necessary to prove up each and every violation or there is no case; no, not one that can be taken into court. That is how important the term Due Process is to our country of laws and protection of its citizens.
“Nor shall private property be taken for public use…” is the next part of the Fifth Amendment that I would like to examine, at least as it comes into the context of Eminent Domain and the abuse of that power.
“Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community”, justices said and then followed with, “The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue”
There is an important step missing in most every case involving local government's attempts to force individuals off of their property in these latest “eminent domain” issues: Due Process of the Law. Call it greed, under the table politics, the good ole’ boy back door pay off. Call it what you will, it still comes off as corruption when looked at with anything other than rose colored glasses. Due process requires legitimate cause for effect, something that is sorely missing in nearly every single case that has been and is before the local courts today. Instead of due process, something which a trusting public requires for them to continue a belief in the judicial system which we all depend on, they are being given the insult of, “just because we said so, now do it, boy!”, from greed driven local municipalities too hungry to be concerned with point of law.
For an example, look at these homes which were deemed to be “blighted”, an eyesore to the community and in desperate need of condemnation so that they could be bull dozed in the hope of restoring valuable property to the community.
Each and every one of these homes has been taken care of and would be considered emaculate under most community standards; but, the shame of these homeowners was that they would not sell out to a business concern which wanted that particular parcel of land to expand their business. Can you imagine, the gall of these individuals standing in the road of progress simply because they felt more important than the community?
“The City of Norwood government and developer Jeffrey R. Anderson are trying to take these private properties away for Anderson’s private use.
Anderson—who has $500 million in real estate holdings and his own private jet—asked the Cincinnati suburb of Norwood to condemn five (for now, but the number will expand) homes and small businesses so he can expand his complex of private offices, condominiums and chain stores. He asked and paid for the “study” Norwood City Council used to declare “blighted” the 99 perfectly fine buildings bounded by Edwards and Edmondson Roads—a charade that enables the City to condemn any and all land in the neighborhood. The Norwood “blight study” itself admitted that not one of the 99 homes or businesses in the area was dilapidated or delinquent on taxes. Not one.”
Now let’s look at Freeport, Texas where Western Seafood and Trico Seafood are in a battle against being condemned, not because they are delinquent on paying taxes or for having a business that is floundering, (pardon the pun but I couldn’t resist), not so. These folks have been in business for about 50 years. They just happen to own a strategic piece of property that another citizen wants to build a fancy marina on. The prospect of having a huge tax base such as a marina full of rich folk’s yachts and the tax base that goes with such an operation was more than the greed incensed local government could handle They immediately condemned the two businesses and started court ordered removal of the previous owners so that the marina could be built. The case is now before the courts and with the recent Supreme Court ruling in Kelo Vs New London, with its specific wording that provides that “Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community”, there will be little, if anything, that Western Seafood and Trico Seafood can do other than bend over the barrel and take it. If that seems a rather crude description, wait until it’s your turn in the barrel.
The Due Process of Law should not and cannot be centered on greed or the profit centered thinking of ones competetors, even when those competitors can accomplish a greater good for the community. To ignore this concept of justice is to ignore right from wrong. The common good of the community is lost when the basic rights of even one of its citizens is set aside. It is no different from the traffic ticket that can’t be proven in a court of law becaue just one point of required law cannot be proven. There can be no Due Process of Law when the initial process of “blighting” or “condemnation of a property” is rooted in the desire to side step the natural market place of commerce by implementing eminent domain instead of supply and demand. When such is used it becomes a reason for the citizens to throw off such “adjudications” as insults to logic, to reason and to common decency expected of government.
I have referenced a couple of my fellow bloggers who’s articles have been included in the formulation of this thought process. A special thank you and Tip of the Hat goes out to my friends Mover Mike and Brad the Unrepentant Individual for their articles posted.
http://unrepentantindividual.com/2005/06/25/gamble-et-al-v-city-of-norwood-oh/
http://www.movermike.com/posts/1119633131.shtml
http://www.movermike.com/posts/1119813813.shtml
http://movermike.powerblogs.com/posts/1111153080.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment