Opinions expressed on the Whig Blog, in the Forums and in comments are those of the individual authors and do not necessarilly represent positions of the Modern Whig Party. The ability to post opinion pieces and comments is not restricted to Whig members (although blog entries are by invitation.) These items are not pre-screened but are subject to our Terms of Use. Please Contact Us or Ask a Question if you have concerns about the content.
It is important to note that in 1787 when the Constitution was created that the American citizenry was far less educated than they are today. With that in mind, the Constitution (as I believe it) was written in plain English and was written to be understood.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution was altered in 2005 specifically, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Quite literally, the word use was redefined as purpose. In Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court redefined this word.
Pfizer, Inc. wanted to develop in New London and instead of acquiring land through private commerce channels, Pfizer got the city to seize the land via eminent domain in the hopes of this providing jobs and therefore stimulating the local economy. Unfortunately, after the city and state spent $78 million, the project fell flat and Pfizer walked away clean and an entire neighborhood of individuals were displaced.
Originally, this was a fight over whether or not the city could seize land for private use and the state of Connecticut agreed that they could not, and sided with the plaintiffs. The United States Supreme Court disagreed.
During the general election of 2012, the Commonwealth of Virginia voted to undo this. The text on the ballot read:
Shall Section 11 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to require that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development; (ii) to define what is included in just compensation for such taking or damaging of property; and (iii) to prohibit the taking or damaging of more private property than is necessary for the public use?
This measure passed with 74% of the vote and now, in the Commonwealth of Virginia it is unconstitutional to do what Pfizer and New London, CT did.
This is an important step, but the question remains, does this apply to the federal government? Can the federal government come and seize homes in Virginia for a purpose explicitly outlawed by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia?
The simple answer is - Yes.
The complicated answer is - Yes, but.
The "but" requires some kind of comprehensive plan formulated by (or at the direction of) a governmental entity which shows the takings (which still require just compensation) fulfill some public benefit goal - and the courts will give considerable deference to any government plan as to what that goal may be.
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution will trump the Virginia Constitution where there is conflict.
It is also feasible (for example) for the City of Petersburg, VA to do the same thing that New London, CT did, based on the SCOTUS "Keno" decision, challenging the related Virginia Constitution Amendment as conflicting with the US Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.
Such is life.....
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
