Thought Provoking Law Quote: Abraham Lincoln

Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail.

--Abraham Lincoln

The thought provoking law quote this week is attributed to Abraham Lincoln, although its provenance is sketchy. The attribution comes from the Congressional Record of May 12, 1944. "Human Rights" is a term that was emerging in the WWII era, but was not commonly used in Lincoln's time. While the provenance may be unclear, the sentiment is not.

I use this quote in class to introduce the eminent domain case of Kelo v. New London.  In Kelo, the US Supreme Court approved a city's use of the eminent domain power to condemn an entire neighborhood of privately owned homes in order to turn the property over to a developer for a proposed hotel/conference complex.  The complex was part of an economic development plan which, according to the court, qualified as a public purpose category of "public use."  Prior to this case, the "public purpose" definition had been used to justify takings only where the existing ownership condition had created some detriment or other public harm.  But in Kelo, the court readily admitted that the houses were not blighted and no public detriment existed - except that the city could increase its tax base if the property was in the hands of someone other than the regular working class tax paying owners who occupied the houses.

At first glance, this may seem to be merely a battle of property rights.  And that is certainly how it was seen by the chairwoman of the New London Redevelopment Authority as expressed in this competing quote:

There are circumstances in which the one gives to the many.

Clearly to New London officials, this dispute was just a matter of economics - get paid for your property and move somewhere else. But almost everyone else sees the City's action as an insensitive violation of the "pursuit of happiness," one of Jefferson's famously enumerated inherent human rights.

Work your whole life, save for your retirement, use your hard earned money to buy a modest property with a water view to which you can retire for your remaining sunset years in peace and happiness. The City can take it from you to turn it into a tourist attraction for yuppies yearning to shed their disposable income. Lincoln's sentiment was lost on the Supreme Court.

Law Lessong - The Takings Clause

The next installment in the “Law Lessong” series is The Takings Clause. The lyrics for this song were written by Alex Bansak, a student in my Legal and Ethical Environment of Business class at the University of Connecticut. Students may submit law songs for credit. In order to fashion a rhyming scheme that matches a melody, a student must carefully examine and distill legal principles and the language that expresses the legal principles. This video features Alex's performance of the song as he submitted it for credit and use in the class. The song helps students consider the legal and practical parameters of the Eminent Domain power.

Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here.  More videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.

Featured Website: Exploring Constitutional Law

The website, Exploring Constitutional Law is maintained by Doug Linder at University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law.  Prof. Linder has compiled material on a wide range of topics.  In each instance, he has gathered case summaries and background information to assist the learning process.  Click on the images below to sample some of the topics explored. But also take the time to explore this website for you own classroom needs.

Thanks to Prof. Lender for sharing this fine classroom resource by posting it on the web.

Click on the image below of Estelle Griswold, plaintiff in the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut to explore the website section on the right of privacy. (source of image: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/june_7_1965_griswold_v._connecticut_decided/)



Click on the image below of Susette Kelo, plaintiff in the landmark case of Kelo v. New London to explore the website section on the takings clause. (source of image: http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2009/02/01/stealing_home/)



Click on the image below of Thomas Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, the locus of the events leading to the landmark case of U.S. v Lopez to explore the website section on the Federal Power to Regulate Commerce. (source of image: http://saisd.net/schools/edison003/)

"Little Pink House" to Become a Movie

When I read Jeff Benedict's, Little Pink House, I did not get what I was expecting.  I got something much more enjoyable and satisfying.  I was expecting to gain some insight into the US Supreme Court's landmark eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London.  Instead, I was treated to the opportunity to meet Susette Kelo and the other residents of the Fort Trumbull section of New London, Connecticut and the government officials who were responsibile for the decisions that affect people's lives. For students, there will be no great insight into the judicial decision-making process. But there will be the unmistakable lesson that beyond the words on the paper and the legal principles, all these judicial decision affect the lives of real people in real ways. Too often students are willing to accept judicial decisions as foregone conclusions.  I hear students react to cases  droning complacently, "The court had no choice, because that is the law."  This book will help students realize that judicial determinations are the product of choices - choices made by government officials at all levels, by business leaders, by corporate managers, by regualr people and, even by judges. And those choices have consequences.

Little Pink House is apparently being made into a Lifetime TV movie starring Brooke Shields as Susette Kelo.  I hope the movie does justice to the story.

Those of you who are not situated here in New England may not be aware of the ironic sequel to the story.  The massive governmental land grab that was approved by the court was to allow for a development to complement a nearby research campus built by the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The preferred developer for the parcel never got funded and never built anything and Pfizer ultimately abandoned the research campus that started the whole ball rolling.

A related post is here.