The Daily Herald reports on an issue that has had a longer delay then anything in the passenger terminals at O'Hare International Airport -- the expansion of runways at the the second-busiest airport in the world by some reports.http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=90673&src=1
Back in 2002, then Illinois Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald threatened to filibuster, and did delay the federal O'Hare expansion bill. Fitzgerald beleived that the government and Chicago were wrong to take the property of both the living and the dead in Bensenville by eminent domain.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20020520/ai_n12465274
Eventually, Congress passed the bill and the new runways are projected to be done, by the end of the decade -- at a cost of about $8 billion, if the government can just get the dead weight out o the way.
But that hasn't been easy, and even though opponents of expansion at O'Hare International Airport were rebuffed yet again Wednesday in their attempts to stop Chicago officials from gutting a cemetery for a new runway -- they aren't quite dead yet.
Bensenville, Elk Grove Village and St. John's United Church of Christ -- which owns the 158-year-old St. Johannes Cemetery -- lost a bid to have the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reconsider their argument that digging up the graves violates religious protection laws.
But the petitioners are vowing to appeal now to the United States Supreme Court. The high Court could grant a writ of certiori even though the 7th Circuit denied appeal here.
This case has religious establishment clause issues, according to Illinois Review (Crossroads of the Conservative Community):
"No religious violation? Huh? Christian reverence for the human body is rooted in the belief in the resurrection of the body, which should be preserved until Judgment Day and not be disturbed in the interim. We are all familiar with the reading of the Rite of Burial: "In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ, we commend to Almighty God our (brother/sister); and we commit (his/her) body to the ground. Earth to earth; ashes to ashes; dust to dust. The Lord bless (him/her) and keep (him/her), the Lord make his face to shine upon (him/her) and be gracious unto (him/her) and give (him/her) peace."
Many Christian religions and Catholic Canon Law have very specific requirements for the final disposition and maintenance of remains, none of which include digging them up to make room for an airport. In other words, the only thing that should be soaring to the skies from that land are the deceased who reside there.
My question is, did the right of those buried at St. Johannes to express their Constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom on their sacred, privately owned land end when they died?"
Jennifer Millhouse Baty
________________If the Supreme Court does take the case, it would be another eminent domain decision that will divide not only the Court, but the American people. Stare decicis from the 2005 case of Kelo v. New London (Conn.) was decided 5-4 in favor of a municipal government land grab from development.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/
Ever since that decision, several states have enacted more restrictive laws against eminent domain and others have considered giving the government and developers more room to condem private property for public use.
Our own school district is still caught up court over obtaining land for the proposed third high school, but has not been able to obtain the land by eminent domain condemnation.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=80932&src=2
The question is how far should the government be granted eminent domain powers? And is moving graves a grave violation of establisment clause rights?
8 comments:
I don't especially like eminent domain, but in cases like the O'Hare airport dustup, you need to ask what the greater good is. The more congested our airports are, the greater the risk of a tragedy on the ground or, worse, in the air. Similarly, with Metea Valley High School, we're talking about providing quality education to thousands of adults-to-be. Eminent domain isn't pretty, but always consider the greater good.
As for the grave issue of moving graves, if a gravesite needs to be moved, it needs to be moved. As far as I'm concerned, dead is dead. If there is a way to avoid ripping out a cemetery, then it should be followed, but if there's no way around it, you simply have to exhume the bodies and rebury them.
I agree with garrett, you have to consider the greater good in every situation like this. we cannot be a dynamic society if we allow dead people from keeping us from moving forwards.
The dead have been moved before without this kind of uproar - the soldiers of the past World Wars given ad hoc burials and then relocated to war cemeteries. Sure, that's a different scenario, but if it could be done then, why can't it be done now?
Eminent domain is somewhat of a touchy thing, you need to go about it very carefully lest someone starts abusing it. Certainly, these people have a right to be a bit disgruntled at being told to move, but if this were to go through, I doubt they'd still be complaining several years down the road.
Garett i find it funny that you would say that emminent domain would benefit the "greater good". Doesnt communism (ideally) do so as well? It was Marx who said that a fundamental step of communism was to "abolish all private property". Unless you want to move to an authoritarian state then i suggest you oppose eminent domain. The state does not have the right to take the people's property, but it does so because it does not fear the people. Eminent domain is fundamentally wrong - it is the state robbing the people of their liberties.
It is exactly this which fueled the opposition to Salvador Allende (democratically elected president of Chile who during the cold war stole the people's land for use of the state) and (with a little help from the CIA) ended in a coup which saw one of the most ruthless dicators in history established there. Eminent domain is something no one wants - you may be all for it now, but if they came after your house in order to build a WalMart then it wouldnt be so pretty. The state should not be all powerful and eminent domain is an aboslute authority which no one should have.
I would also have to agree that eminent domain should be used with caution. I believe that although moving the dead is a sensitive issue, the expansion of an airport is more vital and necessary. Every government should have the power of eminent domain as long as they repay the people justly.
I do not like the idea of rolling bulldozers over graves. Surely they can search for another way or else recompensate the familys. Emmient domain is not something which should be used whenever the government feels like it. However if there is no other way then hopefully the government will give them all a proper reburial in a nearby cemetary.
I have to agree with Garrett as far as using eminent domain with caution and for the greater good. However, I do not agree witht the idea that we should just disregard the dead and move the gravesite somewhere else. For me, it is not really spiritual, but just the fact that it would be a difficult and unneccessary trasition of people who have no real say in where their bodies are going to be resting for eternity.
Post a Comment