CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra defended the Constitution in this segment by Shannon Bream, appearing on Special Report with Bret Baier.
You are here
CAC President Doug Kendall discussed the future of the Supreme Court in President Obama's Second term in this piece by FOX News Channel's Shannon Bream, broadcast on Special Report with Bret Baier.
Supporters of the government's position say it has a vested interest in protecting threatened habitats, and that development comes with a price tag. "The government has to have the ability to make developers pay for the genuine costs development poses," Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said.
Lawmakers cited 70 authorities, including 56 bills under the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states rather than to Congress, and 12 under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms. “The thing that jumped out is how many parts of the Constitution members of Congress seem to think grant them legislative authority,” said Doug Kendall, founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center. “I wouldn’t have thought the 10th Amendment, which is about not legislating, or the First Amendment, which says ‘Congress shall make no law,’ would be fertile ground for legislative authority.
At the heart of almost every takings clause case is the question of whether landowners have an absolute right to use their property as they see fit, or whether the government can impose limits designed to mitigate the cost of the development on the community at large. That is the question at the center of Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, which will be heard next Tuesday by the Supreme Court. The resolution of this case will reveal a great deal about how the Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. will strike this balance.
To understand why this ludicrous claim has not been laughed out of court, you have to shift from Wall Street to the land development world and to a decades-old "property rights" movement that has pushed to expand the scope of the Takings Clause. The next big Supreme Court case dealing with these issues -- indeed, the most important such case to be reviewed by the Court since John Roberts became Chief Justice -- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, will be argued tomorrow. This case has been spearheaded by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a conservative group that has worked for decades to turn the Takings Clause into a constitutional barrier to environmental protection.
Karl Frisch hosted the Leslie Marshall Show and discussed the Supreme Court's consideration of the Voting Rights Act with CAC President and Founder Doug Kendall.
Could a film alter the course of Supreme Court history? If the justices take a trip to their local movie theaters to see "Lincoln," Steven Spielberg's Academy Award-nominated film just might. Rather than focusing mainly on the famous battles, famous generals, or even the Civil War itself, "Lincoln" showcases the hard-fought struggle over the Thirteenth Amendment and highlights some of the forgotten leaders who led the ratification fight. It is this focus on an essential - and essentially lost - part of our constitutional history that makes Spielberg's film so perfectly timed and potentially significant.
CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra joined a panel on HuffPost Live to discuss recent commentary suggesting that Americans jettison the Constitution. Instead, Wydra counseled progressives and all Americans to embrace the Constitution's text and history, which -- contrary to the the pronouncements of Justice Antonin Scalia -- often lead to progressive results on a range of issues facing the Nation today.
The Koontz case is "going away the most important takings case the Roberts Court will decide," agreed Douglas Kendall, head of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which has drafted an amicus brief supporting the water district on behalf of the city of New York, the American Planning Association and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
"You're saying this deserves heightened scrutiny because it regulates based on the content and identity of the speaker, but that's what commercial regulation does," explains David Gans, director of human rights at the left-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center. "If that's what it takes to justify close review, were going to have substantial changes in the legal regime."