An Anniversary of Failure

 

As one of the greatest founding fathers John Adams once said: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

 

What a noble idea. Sadly however nobility is far lacking in today's elected society and this being the 5^th anniversary of failure, such ideas require my attention.

 

I must admit, since the inevitable error of the United States Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision, wherein the Court sanctioned the taking of private property of one American to give to another, I have always had, since that time forward, a rather doubtful opinion of the ability of our highest court to protect the rights of our citizens.

 

Right on cue however is a breath of fresh air with Republican for Connecticut Attorney General Martha Dean. If it were not enough that Ms. Dean clearly intends to restore integrity and original intent into the office of Attorney General, something which most notably has been grossly lacking in the last twenty years, one only needs to examine Ms. Dean solely on her recent statements to get a look at exactly what type of Attorney General she will be.

 

A recent article quotes Ms. Dean as follows: "As Attorney General I will propose reforming Connecticut's eminent domain laws to ensure that the type of eminent domain abuse that was allowed to occur in New London cannot reoccur".

 

At issue with the Kelo vs. New London decision was the very questionable confiscation of private property in this rural New England Town. Martha Dean clearly points out that the original intent of eminent domain was traditionally limited to public projects that would actually be used by the public, such as town halls, school buildings, roads, libraries, and so forth. After a rather broad and significant interpretation of "public use" in the 1950's by the U.S. Supreme Court, the term "public use" included the condemnation of private property to correct blighted urban areas.

 
 

Although the reasons for eminent domain reform are clear, the unintended consequences serve as a reminder in the New London case wherein homeowners lost their homes and there is nothing to show for the loss that the government imposed.

 
 

Martha Dean recently made the following observations of fact that further support why change is needed: "The homes in New London's Fort Trumbull area that were taken by the government for development sit vacant with weeds growing where there were once lawns and gardens. The city development authority's plans for redevelopment were focused on Pfizer's long-term commitment to the area, yet Pfizer has moved away and taxpayers are being forced to pay $35 million to entice another company to move into Pfizer's now-abandoned offices. As Attorney General I will propose reforming Connecticut's eminent domain laws to ensure that the type of eminent domain abuse that was allowed to occur in New London cannot reoccur,"

 

For 20 years Connecticut had an Attorney General that had little time on his hands to represent the true interests of those that placed him into office, especially when their most prized and sacred possession; their home was being confiscated. While chasing Connecticut business out of State, running after cameras, mis-speaking about his veteran service in a foreign war, and what ever else Richard Blumenthal did top acquire his $65 million treasure chest he also somewhere lost touch with We the People. It is time that dereliction of duties changes so we are ensured the next Attorney General of Connecticut does not allow history to repeat itself.

 

It is no secret that the duties of the Attorney General are far reaching and include making legislative proposals, providing opinions on the constitutionality of proposed legislation and, at times, existing law, and otherwise protecting Connecticut citizens from an abuse of state authority. Something Martha Dean clearly understands.

 

If Connecticut is ever going to move forward and away from this prominent abyss of failure, it must first require an Attorney General that has moral, ethical, clear thinking and articulate counsel, all traits that adequately favor Ms. Dean and are painfully a challenge to her opponents. Without such, we will all too often experience an anniversary of failure once again.