Shorten Judicial Terms

One of the most important decisions the court decided to tackle last session had to do with property rights and the governmentís use of eminent domain powers. Enumerated in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the eminent domain clause, or the ìtakings clause,î specifies that the government (whether it be local, state or federal) may seize the private property of the individual as long as the owner is justly compensated and the land is designated for ìpublic use.î The term ìpublic useî has widely been interpreted as using the newly acquired land for public goods such as roadways, municipal buildings or other public amenities that are accessible for all persons to enjoy. However, the controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London (2005) has dramatically stomped on all previous precedent and opened up a Pandoraís Box of ambiguity.

According to the Supreme Court, the City of New London could constitutionally seize the land of private homeowners, compensate them for their land and turn around and sell that newly acquired land to private developers to build commercial structures such as shopping malls and office buildings. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, wrote: ìThe City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community Ö including ó but by no means limited to ó new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Therefore, the Supreme Court has ruled by the slimmest of margins that if your privately owned property is not bringing in enough tax revenue deemed ìadequateî by your local city council, the government has not just the right, but seemingly the duty to take your property away from you in order to put in a convenience store that will bring in more property taxes. This decision could go down as one of the most un-American, anti-ownership, communist-type rulings in the history of the judicial system. No longer can homeowners feel secure in their property investments. Instead, private property owners must constantly look over their shoulder and be at the mercy of their local city council, hoping that a private developer cannot effectively bid themselves the right to your property.

Private property rights are an intrinsically important cornerstone in the United States, and one that is on the same level as liberties such as free speech and freedom to practice oneís religion. The Supreme Courtís attack on such a fundamental right is an assault on individual liberty and autonomy and goes against the very Constitution that the justices have sworn to protect.

This latest decision has further affirmed my belief that lifetime appointments to the bench do not create an independent judiciary, but rather, out-of-touch justices who let their virtually unmitigated powers corrupt their judgment.

A solution would be to limit justicesí terms. Instead of lifetime appointments, justices appointed to federal courts would serve one non-renewable term. The terms would be staggered so that each presidential term could appoint the same number of justices. This would add fairness while creating a much more effective check on the judiciary. Making the terms non-renewable will allow for the judiciary to still be independent and enjoy limited political pandering during the time of nomination.

Non-renewable set length terms work great for the Federal Reserve, and nobody doubts their independence and autonomy. Term limits on federal justices would decentralize judicial power and create a more equitable balance between the three branches of government.