Home/Index/Front Page/Court Watch/What Would Jefferson Say?/Visitor Comments /Representative's Response//

SUPREME COURT SAYS THE CITY MAY TAKE YOUR LAND
NOT JUST FOR PUBLIC USE BUT TO TRANSFER IT TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER TO INCREASE ITS TAX VALUE TO THE CITY.

"In this sense, the theory of the Communist may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property."

Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

United States Constitution, Amendment V

"No person's particular services shall be demanded, without just compensation. No person's property shall be taken by law, without just compensation; nor, except in the case of the State, without such compensation first assessed and tendered."

Indiana constitution, Article 1, Section 21

Eminent domain powers are covered several places in the Indiana Code but the following may be found in IC 14-17-3-1, General eminent domain powers. Section 1 (a) "The commission may exercise the power of eminent domain as necessary or proper to carry out the following."

(1) IC 14-19-1-1 [Recreational Development]
(2) IC 14-22-3 [Fish and Wildlife]
(3) IC 14-23-1-1 [Forestry]
(4) IC 14-25-10 [Water Rights and Resources]
(5) IC 14-31-1 [Nature Preserves]
(6) IC 14-26-1-4 [Lakes and Reservoirs]
(7) IC 14-26-1-5 [Lakes and Reservoirs]
(8) IC 14-28-1-11 [Flood Control]

Section 1 (b) The Department may exercise the power of eminent domain as necessary or proper to carry out the following:

(1) IC 14-29-6-13 [Rivers, Streams and Waterways]
(2) IC 14-34-19-6 [Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation]
(3) IC 36-2-6 [Reclamation]

Now the ruling of the men and women in black has taken me aback! Those whom one would expect would want to keep all power in the Federal Government passed to buck to the states. Those whom I would expect to support states rights, generally, dissented. I asked myself, why. Lest we become confused, consider.

The United States Constitution, strictly constructed, would seem to prohibit the taking of individual property for private use. Unfortunately, it does not say that. The Constitution deals with taking for public use. I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Over two hundred years of understanding changed by an unelected few.

Now we find a ploy by which the State can facilitate the taking of private property to transfer it to another private person, real or corporate, if the transfer makes the State more money in tax revenue. Back to the first position by our buddy Karl.

There is good news and bad news. The good news is that for we in Indiana once the question arises, it will be settled by our Supreme court and there will be no recourse. The bad news is that once it is addressed by our Supreme court there will be no recourse. The United States Constitution by a vote of 5 to 4 no longer protects the rights of personal property.


We must now encourage our State Representatives and Senators to support an amemdment to our Constitution that will prohibit the taking of private property for private use.

Top