|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Best sellers at The Sharper Image February 27, 2005 The Fifth and Twenty-Second By Jan A. Larson Many (I hesitate to say most) Americans are familiar with the clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution that guarantees that a defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself. Far fewer are familiar with the Fifth Amendment clause that guarantees that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. This is the "eminent domain" clause. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo versus New London last week. The decision in this case will have a profound effect on the application of eminent domain clause for generations to come. The decision will either reinforce the Framers' intentions or will effectively eliminate the restrictions on governmental seizure of private property. This particular case involves the desire by the city of New London, Connecticut to seize homes in a 90-acre tract for the construction of a privately owned development that would include a hotel, conference center, office space and condominiums. The Fifth Amendment specifically uses the term "public use" in the eminent domain clause. Obviously private land seized for the construction of a highway constitutes a public use, but the interpretation of public use has evolved to the point where it now means "public interest." The city of New London argues that it is in the public interest for the development to be constructed, as it would generate more tax revenue than the modest, 100 year-old homes currently occupying that tract. The two issues at play are whether a government entity may seize any property; homes, businesses, churches, etc., simply because some other business may produce higher tax revenue and the question of "just compensation." If a homeowner's land is seized for the development of a property that will generate higher tax revenue, "just compensation" must necessarily be much greater than the appraised value of the home. Tearing down houses to build a hotel? The Framers will turn in their graves if the Supreme Court rules for New London. Another amendment to the Constitution, the twenty-second, is also under attack. Again. A resolution was introduced in the House proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal the twenty-second amendment. That amendment provides that no President serves more than two terms. The twenty-second amendment was ratified in 1951 following the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt, of course, was elected to four terms as President. Instead of trying to eliminate term limits on the office of President, Congress would serve the interests of the American public by proposing a constitutional amendment to limit their own terms. Opponents of term limits always use the excuse that the public is smart enough (a patronizing phrase if I've ever heard one) to be able to choose their representatives without having to exclude any candidate based on years of service. What they fail to understand is the power of incumbency. That power is so great for Senators and Representatives that it is akin to giving the New England Patriots a 35-0 lead against a college team and playing just the second half. Needless to say, upsets don't happen very often. Over 95% of congressional incumbents have won reelection in recent years. This is not true with the presidency, however. Of the last six sitting Presidents to run for a second term, three have won (Reagan, Clinton, G. W. Bush) and three have lost (Ford, Carter, G. H. W. Bush). A repeal of the twenty-second amendment would not likely result in very many three or four-term presidents, but it would result in every president in a second (or subsequent) term spending three of those four years concentrating on reelection instead of governing. One term of jockeying for reelection is enough. There is no compelling reason to repeal the twenty-second amendment and Congress would be advised to stop wasting time on the effort. Instead, members of Congress should look at themselves and decide whether having members serve 20, 30 or more years is really good for the country. Hint - it's not. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
