KELO VS. NEW LONDON; CONCUR & DISSENT INFOAND , FINALLY, MY RELEASE VERSIONOF "THE BALLAD SUSETTE KELO"

THE BALLAD OF SUSETTE KELO"
I decided do do the whole thing myself. Vocals, percussion, synth. strings, guitar, packaging, labeling, ...I've been in a rather INTENSE frame of mind for about 5 weeks. 6 of those days putting in 40+ hours non stop. Only nodding off once while listening to a playback...but it was only a moment...You know..one of those jerk your head forward like your falling things??...

I learned something today! OK...You just can't count on our Founding Fathers anymore. The "Eminent Domain" 5th admendment bill, which Tom Jefferson altered language to prevent what has been happening all over the country (rather quietly...WHERE ARE YOU CNN,ABC,NBC,CBS,MSNBC,CSN,FOX & PRINT MEDIA?), was "adjusted" in the 14th admentment (post Civil War). And, I believe, it is from here the state's have been twisting the Constitution's protective verbage in to "hostile" use. I see the United States Constitution becoming so filled with "admendments" that it is becoming weaker and more meaningless to citizens of middle to lowest income (class, if you will) that it is becoming an illusory "prop" for holidays, history classes and more "what used to be". i.e. Seperation of Church & State. Has NOTHING to do with Christmas trees or monuments on government/private property. The United States developed from folks from England, remember? In England the Church...The Church of England ruled the land. Thus whatever constraints the Church adhered to so went the law of the land. THAT is seperation of Church & State! Not what someone has on their lawn, says at a graduation or places in public areas. If someone sees a "piece" or hears some words they don't agree with it is their RIGHT to feel however they feel. Be it good or bad. But, in reverse mode, secular religious groups are being listened to and favored by the U.S. Government. Turning the United States back in time. Slowly making the U.S. Constitution a relic and museum piece to but look at. Meaning nothing and protecting no one.

OK...Thank you Wikpedia for allowing the following to be posted here;


Majority opinion
On June 23, 2005, The Supreme Court agreed with the City of New London in a 5-4 decision. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Justice Kennedy penned a separate concurring opinion taking a somewhat narrower view of local government power than that found in Stevens' majority opinion. Stevens said that local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing property for land-use decisions of a local nature. "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue". The decision pre-empted criticism of the possibility that the decision would be abused for private purposes by arguing that "the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use."


Dissenting opinions
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; Justice O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich—would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively [deletes] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment".

Clarence Thomas also penned a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'" Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLS amicus brief, (co-authored by South Jersey Legal Services) on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting: "Losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

Thomas argued in favor of deciding the case based on the text of the constitution itself, rather than by judicial precedent, which he believed was flawed:

the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning.