Eminent domain refers to that right of the government to take property away from a private owner.  As current law states, eminent domain is to be exercised only in cases where the property will be used by the public at large, for example, state or national parks, highways, bridges, schools, etc.  The private owner must be compensated by the government for any property seized under eminent domain.  This law is backed up by none other than the Bill of Rights, in Amendment V; by the philosophy of John Locke; and most recently by an executive order of George W. Bush adding to the constitutional wording that eminent domain is not to be used for the purpose of “giving economic advantage to private parties”.

President Bush’s executive order was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London.   In this case, the Court upheld the city of New London, Connecticut’s, “right” to take Susette Kelo’s land and home, along with those of her neighbors in order to hand it over to a private firm for redeveloping.  This reverse Robin Hood scenario was approved by the Court under the auspices that economic development and tax income for the city constituted “public use”.

The outcome of this horrible abuse of government power?  The re-developer who obtained the stolen land in the name of eminent domain was never able to raise the funds necessary to do the mysterious unspecified re-development project.  The once lovely waterfront land is now a city dump.

Citizens in a free world should be concerned about any government’s abuse of eminent domain, because not only do eminent domain laws govern real property, but also personal property, contract rights, patents, trade secrets and copyrights.  John Locke’s philosophy was that right of ownership in property was vested according to the labor expended to create value in that property.  The United States Constitution upholds that right.  Citizens should be ever vigilant against the government’s abuse of eminent domain or any other power.