Eminent domain and the elitist bent

In ancient days of kingdoms and fiefdoms, those in authority would sometimes arbitrarily and sometimes capriciously order the transfer of property from one owner to another person who was in greater favor with the ruler or who offered greater kickbacks to the ruler. The owner from whom the property was taken had no recourse once the king or ruler had made the decision to transfer the property. To enforce the transfer, the tyrannical despot would make clear that the full weight of his military or law enforcement would be brought to bear against anyone who attempted to stand in the way of the transfer.

In a free market system on which the United States was founded and previously possessed, someone who desired the property of another for private purposes or development had to keep making a higher and still higher offer until it was too good to refuse.

In the recent Supreme Court case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., the elaborate 20 page majority opinion of the Supreme Court is one of the most eloquent, articulate, intellectual efforts to ever rationalize or try to cerebrally legitimize the forced transfer from the legal, legitimate owner of non-blighted property to someone who is in greater favor with the ruler of the area. It is something that our high court can point to with pride that they almost make it sound “fair” that private property can be taken from one legitimate owner and forcibly transferred to one who offers greater financial rewards to the ruler.

What a great day for the intellectual superiority of our highest court as it gets a “10” rating in the field of mental gymnastics, even from the Russian judge, but what a very sad day for truth, justice and what used to be the American way!

Though the Supreme Court has previously and improperly cited evolving international opinion as a basis for their rewriting U.S. constitutional law, the Kelo case is a “devolution” of precedent. This court obviously has a bent toward rationale that may be overheard at international cocktail parties or receptions from foreign elitists who believe that they know better than the Neanderthals in American and wish to substitute their neo-intellectual notions for the will of the American people. However, their Napoleonic ideas have no business replacing the ingenious provisions that succinctly comprise our Constitution.

Our tripartite government was designed with checks and balances on each branch. The president can veto acts of Congress and the Congress can also override the president. However, with an activist Supreme Court as we now have, the high court trumps all else including constitutional amendments since they can interpret those by inserting language that is not there.

Once again, it is made abundantly clear that judges appointed to the Supreme Court must not only be intelligent, but they must understand that the greatness of this nation’s past lies in common sense, not in an elitist oligarchy that holds itself unaccountable to anyone.

Rep. Louie Gohmert served three terms as a district judge in Smith County, Texas, and as chief justice of the 12th Court of Appeals. Rep. John Carter served more than 20 years on the bench. Rep. Ted Poe served as a judge in Houston for more than 22 years. All three are Republicans.