(merged) Supreme Court OKs personal property seizures

[Larry]

Although, Ghost, I would say that it can at least be argued that the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . ." could be interpreted as being the only part of the Constitution that has an expiration clause.

(I don't agree with it, but I can see some logic to it.)

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Matrix..pah. Give me LotR or SW any day or more aptly--Gladiator.

I'd say Nero and his ilk had more to do with the downfall of Rome than the slaves uprising--but this does lead into a point you make later in this post.

a) Yes. Each individual, whether it offends the sensibilities of others or not, is the arbiter of what is right. Fortunately, they can test their ideas out on the real world and we can have beliefs that we take as givens so that we may proceed down the line. It's called having beliefs. Some have a demonstrably more positive effect on human beings than others. Some we have to take as a given because if we don't we risk condoning or tolerating the Pol Pots of this world.

So in that case, everyone's body of beliefs and sense of liberty is relative, is it not? I was more hinting at the fact that what you wrote signaled a more absolutist sense of what is right and what is wrong framed by your own value sets--that you in effect had exchange yourself for the government as judge and jury.

Yes. Why the hell would I be on the wrong side of liberty? Why would I be on the SIDE of governments and the powerful. Because a government is ostensibly democratic means nothing if the spirit of the society and the governing institutions does not correspond to it.

True. I would hope to be on the "right" side too assuming that the value set assumed by the individuals, or likely more appropriately the collective individual set, would correspond to my own. The individual values only work in the realm of thought, at some point there has to be an established value set probably vested in some form of government. It is likely impossible for such a government to integrate the value sets of all the individual members, don't you think?

Here's my question to you: Was the US on the right side during WW II? Or was it just a side? Were the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto on the right side or not? Did the Ukrainians that tried to fight Stalin(and failed) stand up for 'right' or at least 'more right' or 'not evil.'

Yes, the US was on the right side--were someone is as evil as Hitler, then there is more likely to be a "right" side and a "wrong" side. But be careful; before you spoke of how: "History is not divided between hideous caricatures and noble cartoons, but between good and bad people on both sides, but often doing good or evil things for different reasons. But there IS a right side." Those two statements when viewed in the context of the Nazis seem to contradict each other.

Are people ever RIGHT to fight? Are they ever RIGHT to stand against powers that seek to abuse and tyrannize them?

Clearly yes, but the fight need not be in the form of violence.

When would YOU say the time would be for a given group of people to stand ?

That's an impossible question to ask given that every set of facts will dictate a different scenario for when the "right" time comes about. This is probably another example of a relative sense, here urgency to reform, coming into play.

Were not Adams, Paine and Washington arbiters of the right side?

Perhaps in their own time--I don't know enough to say that they espoused universal "right" such that their views would carry my favor today.

Originally posted by Larry

Juas thought of what may be another way to look at this decision:

What we have here is a case in which the government is using force to deprive someone of property, although in a supposedly fair, impartial way, for the purpose of giving it to another person, and justifying this transfer because they claim that the community as a whole will be better off after the transfer.

The difference between this and welfare is?

Larry, I think that's the best point in this entire thread.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Didn't the 2nd go from a universally acknowledged individual right from every contemporary of the Bill of Rights to a 'collective' right in the minds of some deceivers who have chosen to take the first instance of BROKEN PRECEDENT and making it the basis for future BAD LAW?

ummm.... not as far as I know.

[ironmic]

and you thought what would happened when the EXTREME right gained power...(noting its not a right or left issue) an extremist is an extremist whether left or right....and Bush is EXTREME RIGHT all your liberties,freedoms rights and dreams have been slowly stolen from you...THE NEW WORLD ORDER!! YEEE HAW!

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I'm sorry, wasn't Dred Scott's case decided on existing law and interpretation?

Didn't the 2nd go from a universally acknowledged individual right from every contemporary of the Bill of Rights to a 'collective' right in the minds of some deceivers who have chosen to take the first instance of BROKEN PRECEDENT and making it the basis for future BAD LAW?

Separate but equal was supported by previous interpretations too. Slavery. We can go down the list.

Didn't Palpatine say, "I will make it legal?"

Lots of things are legal.

ALTHOUGH, I'd hasten to add that the easily-found meaning of the Constitution would render these decisions ILLEGAL because only a dunce doesn't just go back and read the GD Federalist papers or writings by Madison to discover what was meant by the commerce clause and eminent domain.

This may all be true, but these same founders who's opinion you consider so important also vested in the courts the power to review these laws. Implicit in this delegation was the power to choose which precedent and authority to use in constructing a rule.

That you bring up slavery and separate but equal just speaks to the fact that there are always relative standards for what is "right."

[Ghost of]

Sol

My point about history not being a cartoon playing out is that there ARE good and bad people...or just people on two or more sides in a conflict. We may not like to hear it, but there WERE decent and honorable Nazis, WITHIN a certain framework.

I've always found it interesting that we could dismiss Communists as being 'well-intentioned' while not giving that same credit to Nazis, DESPITE the Reds racking up a higher slavery and death count.

The other thing I think I might not have conveyed, is that while we ALL EXIST IN OUR OWN LITTLE UNIVERSES(which cease to exist when we die) there also IS a right and wrong or, at least, a MORE RIGHT or MORE WRONG for HUMANS. If we were a race of ant-like creatures, perhaps totaltiarianism would be great.

One can acknowledge that perhaps, metaphysically

Why should a person fight or engage in violence to be free of oppression or death itself? Eventually, we all die. And most humans throughout 'civilized history' suffered some measure of oppression.

The point about violence is not that it should be done NOW, but that most moves by government show that the encroachments are NOT BEING REVERSED(except in a few cases)

History is not several isolated moments. What was built here, while imperfect in many ways, has been eroded by good intentions and by the power-hungry and by the indoctrination of the 'intellectuals' of later times who fell in love with State control(and the glorification of their elite class as arbiters)

BTW, are the State and other affilated or interested parties not playing the arbiter when it comes to these matters? Hey, we get to knock down doors and shoot people in the wrong house--oops. No criminal punishment. Continued practice of this tactic---let's step it up a notch. But you can't even say they're being arbiters for anything genuinely good. Just the continuation of their own budgets, prestige and existence and sense of self-worth and esteem derived from putting their boot on the citizenry(or perhaps misguided ACTUALLY GOOD intentions)

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by Predicto

ummm.... not as far as I know.

There is conflict on the issue, so it's not a consensus opinion yet, but there really wasn't much debate from the people who mattered at the time.

Just later when it became convenient for some. Just as with the 4th having more and more loophole "decisions" being made to counteract it.

Back to Sol,

Relative standards....that's nice.

What does that mean? You still have to choose.

Or you can be faithfully 'moderate' to the point where you don't actually take a stand, which actually just continues the momentum of a given state to perhaps a velvet-gloved iron fist of tyranny, rather than a Pol Pot-esque venture.

I never said anything or any standard was perfect or truly absolute.

What are you doing but playing semantical games without actually touching on the issue of whether YOU believe something to be right or wrong and what YOU do when you see something like that. Let me actually re-state that. I know you DO take stands, I've seen it.

I'll be the first to state that peaceful protest is way to go, but even Gandhi said that he only proposed it because it could WORK on the British. Who is to say the bureau-tyrants of the future will be so amenable? And how will we know if they really are? Hell, compare the Crown's impositions on the Colonies to all levels of government now.

:laugh:

In the end, I think you have decided to engage me in debate about the meaning of 'right and wrong' because I used pretty harsh rhetoric. I wouldn't be the first or last and honestly, changes are not made from equivocating and mincing words. But really, what was the point? You knew what I meant and you knew that I believe in taking stands, SOMETIMES violent ones, if they are necessary. Was it an occasion to scold me for 'extremist rhetoric' or for sounding like Thomas Paine(though far less eloquent and artful?) I'm just not sure what the digression is meant to achieve. You can agree with my words and not the subject that births them or agree or disagree on my clumsy rhetorical flourishes but not on the cause. So? Let others debate whether they agree or not or whether they want to add their opinion to the thread or on the case or the subject of government, eminent domain, property rights, etc.

I probably distracted the thread(or just continued an already scattered thread) but hell, it's worth it.

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Back to Sol,

Relative standards....that's nice.

What does that mean? You still have to choose.

Or you can be faithfully 'moderate' to the point where you don't actually take a stand, which actually just continues the momentum of a given state to perhaps a velvet-gloved iron fist of tyranny, rather than a Pol Pot-esque venture.

This is definitely true, but I think that one could take a stand that is just as "right" as another and it can be it partial or total contravention of another equally "right" point of view in some respects. I wasn't advocating the moderate-spineless Eloi way of going through life.

I never said anything or any standard was perfect or truly absolute.

Ok, as long as in practice you still hold that to be true. Essentially what I'm trying to convey is that there be some room for alternative validity which should be accompanied by tolerance. That's really all I'm getting at.

What are you doing but playing semantical games without actually touching on the issue of whether YOU believe something to be right or wrong and what YOU do when you see something like that. Let me actually re-state that. I know you DO take stands, I've seen it.

If what I've said in this post or in this thread comes across as semanical games, then I assure you that it wasn't my intention. I was really just trying to counteract the knee-jerk reaction and discuss the issues as they arose in the context of the decision. That's what I was trying to do, especially with redman given that he's a practitioner in the area.

I will concede that in the preparation for the ****ing Bar Exam, I might have been inadvertantly trying to flex a little law school muscle, with what little I've gained in the drudgery of the last three years.

In the end, I think you have decided to engage me in debate about the meaning of 'right and wrong' because I used pretty harsh rhetoric. I wouldn't be the first or last and honestly, changes are not made from equivocating and mincing words. But really, what was the point? You knew what I meant and you knew that I believe in taking stands, SOMETIMES violent ones, if they are necessary. Was it an occasion to scold me for 'extremist rhetoric' or for sounding like Thomas Paine(though far less eloquent and artful?) I'm just not sure what the digression is meant to achieve. You can agree with my words and not the subject that births them or agree or disagree on my clumsy rhetorical flourishes but not on the cause. So? Let others debate whether they agree or not or whether they want to add their opinion to the thread or on the case or the subject of government, eminent domain, property rights, etc.

I promise you that in the inital post I was really only joking around--maybe I should have thrown in another smiley or something comparable to more effectively convey that.

[Ghost of]

Sol

I actually noted that in my post but removed it(about flexing Law School Muscle) You may have seen it but it wasn't there that long. I didn't think it was appropriate to make it personal, but I did get that feeling.

Understand too, that we are at different points. I'm kind of fed-up today whereas you are trying to hone the skills needed for your career.

Hell, you'll probably be an effective friend of freedom.

Don't take my posts here as hostility towards you(actually my first post wasn't about you at all but just as me venting today. If I can vent in a way that gets people thinking or hell, gets their blood pumping, that's a good thing.

As anyone knows around here, Ghost doesn't care that much about making 'enemies' with my style. I'll try to be friendly later AFTER I've made my point There's an AUDIENCE to consider, after all!

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

I actually noted that in my post but removed it(about flexing Law School Muscle) You may have seen it but it wasn't there that long. I didn't think it was appropriate to make it personal, but I did get that feeling.

Yeah, I saw it and that's what I was responding to--no worries on the personal front, I knew you didn't intend it as a dig.

Understand too, that we are at different points. I'm kind of fed-up today whereas you are trying to hone the skills needed for your career.

Actually I'm trying to avoid studying Evidence--if this hones my careers skills, that's an unitended benefit.

Hell, you'll probably be an effective friend of freedom.

Indeed!

[SkinsHokieFan]

Damaging 'Deference'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301420.html

By George F. Will

Post

Friday, June 24, 2005; A31

The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise "judicial restraint" and "deference" to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did yesterday.

Most conservatives hoped that, in the most important case the court was to decide this term, judicial activism would put a leash on popularly elected local governments and would pull courts more deeply into American governance to protect the rights of individuals. Yesterday conservatives were disappointed.

The case came from New London, Conn., where the city government, like all governments, wants more revenue and has empowered a private entity, New London Development Corp., to exercise the awesome power of eminent domain. It has done so to condemn an unblighted working-class neighborhood in order to give the space to private developers whose condominiums, luxury hotel and private offices would pay more taxes than do the owners of the condemned homes and businesses.

The question answered yesterday was: Can government profit by seizing the property of people of modest means and giving it to wealthy people who can pay more taxes than can be extracted from the original owners? The court answered yes.

The Fifth Amendment says, among other things, "nor shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation" (emphasis added). All state constitutions echo the Constitution's Framers by stipulating that takings must be for "public use." The Framers, who weighed their words, clearly intended the adjective "public" to circumscribe government's power: Government should take private property only to create things -- roads, bridges, parks, public buildings -- directly owned or primarily used by the general public.

Fighting eviction from homes one of them had lived in all her life, the New London owners appealed to Connecticut's Supreme Court, which ruled 4 to 3 against them. Yesterday they lost again. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5 to 4 ruling that drains the phrase "public use" of its clearly intended function of denying to government an untrammeled power to dispossess individuals of their most precious property: their homes and businesses.

During oral arguments in February, Justice Antonin Scalia distilled the essence of New London's brazen claim: "You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?" Yesterday the court said that the modifier "public" in the phrase "public use" does not modify government power at all. That is the logic of the opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

In a tart dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia, noted that the consequences of this decision "will not be random." She says it is "likely" -- a considerable understatement -- that the beneficiaries of the decision will be people "with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Those on the receiving end of the life-shattering power that the court has validated will almost always be individuals of modest means. So this liberal decision -- it augments government power to aggrandize itself by bulldozing individuals' interests -- favors muscular economic battalions at the expense of society's little platoons, such as homeowners and the neighborhoods they comprise.

Dissenting separately, Thomas noted the common-law origins and clearly restrictive purpose of the Framers' "public use" requirement. And responding to the majority's dictum that the court should not "second-guess" the New London city government's "considered judgment" about what constitutes seizing property for "public use," he said: A court owes "no deference" to a legislature's or city government's self-interested reinterpretation of the phrase "public use," a notably explicit clause of the Bill of Rights, any more than a court owes deference to a legislature's determination of what constitutes a "reasonable" search of a home.

Liberalism triumphed yesterday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government.

Conservatives should be reminded to be careful what they wish for. Their often-reflexive rhetoric praises "judicial restraint" and deference to -- it sometimes seems -- almost unleashable powers of the elected branches of governments. However, in the debate about the proper role of the judiciary in American democracy, conservatives who dogmatically preach a populist creed of deference to majoritarianism will thereby abandon, or at least radically restrict, the judiciary's indispensable role in limiting government.

[NoCalMike]

Wealthy Developers with political influence: 2305782450

The People: 0

[Ghost of]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

Wealthy Developers with political influence: 2305782450

The People: 0

Not just that, but I think the issue shows(not saying you, Mike) that a RESPECT for private property rights(and how related it is other rights) is not a strength of certain people.

And notice the voting. Bet you didn't think you'd be on Scalia's side on much, didja? *but then he likes to pick when he stands on 'strict constructionism' and when he doesn't. That's why Thomas is more honorable and closer Constitutionalist(though nowhere near perfect)

Actually, it's not JUST developers. History has shown people will rarely NOT vote or attempt to leverage an advantage. But one can ask this:

If Government did not eat so much of our taxes and have so little respect for people's ability to live independently, would this have ever passed? I say no.

This is as much about the insatiable hunger of governments for revenue once the people allow them to spend other peoples' money. So, when you are for socialist/collectivist/kleptocratic proposals in one area, keep this decision in mind (that goes to anyone reading, not just you Mike)

I actually view this as far more heinous an infringement than DUI checkpoints or even no-knock raids.

Will makes a good point in the last paragraph(though I don't think all conservatives argue for stare decisis or restraint unless the decision is in line with the perceived 'original intent')

Thomas, as usual of late, is whoppin' ace.

In any case, I see some rationalization and parsing of words that I don't seem from the same cats on other decisions involving the courts. It's pretty clear that despite the more nuanced language in the opinion that this opened the door to even more property rights erosion which is the next step to authoritarianism or worse.

You just became serfs, Americans. Now private interests for the benefit of themselves and the black hole of government coffers can take what is yours. That they offer 'compensation' is a lot like throwing a 100 dollar bill on a rape victim.

TJ, GW and J-Mad are spinning. They relied on the ability of words to not be twisted to fit any agenda, even a liberty-defending document.

I do agree with something I saw elsewhere:

"

And a hundred years ago there would be open rebellion and another civil war. (not over this one case but cumulatively, I would agree- Ghst) Today? Hardly. Our neutered society will protest and ***** and a few will stand and fight and the statist media will portray them as nothing but fanatics and hound them until they are seen as public enemy number one: followed by calls for more gun bans."

[DjTj]

Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have had a problem with this at all. Federalism was about limiting the power of the federal government, and during Jefferson's entire lifetime he certainly did not expect the takings clause to apply to the states and certainly not local governments. The Bill of Rights wasn't going to be incorporated for another century or two.

To Jefferson, the Virginia legislature, the Albermarle County Council, and the Charlottesville City Council was "us", while Congress, the President, and especially the Supreme Court was "them". He wasn't afraid of "us", he was afraid of "them".

Reading through this thread, it seems like a lot of people don't believe in any level of "us" anymore, and I think the founding fathers would be far more frightened by that fact than by a threat to property rights. If you handed them this decision, they would almost certainly applaud it because if it went the other way, they would see it as an unconstitutional federal intrusion into a state matter. If a duly elected local government wants to exercise its eminent domain, what business does the federal Supreme Court have in saying no?

All throughout this thread, people refer to every level of government in every form as "them", but I think at some level you have to believe that what the neighborhood does, what the community does, what the city does, is something that you're a part of ... that there exists some group of people that if organized, you don't need to live in fear of.

I know where my state delegate lives, and I trust that she's not going to sell out our community to a shopping mall. That's how democracy works, and if we all don't have a little faith in that, maybe democracy isn't the right form of government for "us".

[Ghost of]

DjTj

I don't want to reply with any rancor, but it would be hard.

I'll just say that while I do somewhat agree with your last sentence, that your post displays a stunning level of naivete.

And what I'd be dying to know is if another 'local' issue involving something you cared more about (or had experience with) resulted in a similar decision in favor of government, is if you'd have the same reaction.

But even if you are right on TJ(I still think he had certain beliefs about ANY level of government, but if I could throw in other names that fall more in line with what I was saying--) it doesn't mean that things HAVENT changed.

It's obvious to me that on many levels, this society is radically different from the independent and anti-centralist yeoman farmers of the late 1700s/early 1800s. In some ways this is a good thing, but it also means that people are far more submissive now and beholden and I don't think they WOULD take too kindly to such LOCAL LAWS just because they were MORE hostile to federal intrusion.

Anyways, as to your last paragraph:

Dude, have you heard of Louisiana? Or Chicago?

Corrupt local government is nothing new, in fact, I'd argue that the most local (city councils and the like) are probably the most corruptible. And with permits to do ANYTHING to your house or limit development of your OWN land, I'd say local government has shown it's possessed of the same statist mentality as the other levels.

Local is only better because your decisions need only affect that small radius. Not because it can't be just as evil or abusive.

Oh and it's already BEEN happening all over the country. This just opens the door even more. Look up, oh, the case that was being presented today as one example. Freeport in Texas is another(taking land away from two seafood companies to build a private marina.)

As a final thought, the vote split might make more sense when you consider this:

"We will take things from you, on behalf of the common good." -HRClinton

[Larry]

I'm with Ghost, again.

In my experience, local government is far more corrupt than the higher levels. (Well, maybe it's a case of "they hide their corruption much less".)

I've lived, for example, in places where the largest real estate developer in the state's wife was on the county commission, and was in charge of the county zoning office.

Remember, for example: Every single case you hear of where somebody decided that siezing a chunk of land so they can give (not even sell) the land to a Wal-Mart, began with a decision at the "local" level.

My theory for this is that, frankly, the typical voter (including, I'm ashamed to say, myself) simply doesn't pay attention to even his state government, let alone the local stuff.

The folks at the local level are a lot cheaper to buy, and nobody's watching.

(Heck, the most power-hungry, abusive, authoritarian body most people can find is your neighborhood homeowners association.)

[iheartskins]

I think you're right Larry and you're essentially putting forth the same arguments as the dissent.

DjTj, in an ideal world free of corruption, I would readily adopt your position, but I don't think the "strict controls against corruption" that the majority requests state legistlatures to implent are going to come into play is most circumstances.

[boobiemiles]

Bushenomics at work folks.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by boobiemiles

Bushenomics at work folks.

Wanna elaborate on that? It was the more liberal judges that voted for this

[iheartskins]

Originally posted by boobiemiles

Bushenomics at work folks.

You do realize that all of the traditionally conservative judges voted against the allowance of the taking in this case, right?

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by iheartskins

You do realize that all of the traditionally conservative judges voted against the allowance of the taking in this case, right?

Bushco is different than the old small government conservatives. Bush and the neocons are statists unlike what the old conservatives used to be.

[SkinsHokieFan]

double post

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Liberty

Bushco is different than the old small government conservatives. Bush and the neocons are statists unlike what the old conservatives used to be.

What does the President have to do with this ruling?

You are starting to take some DU talking points here buddy

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Liberty

Bushco is different than the old small government conservatives. Bush and the neocons are statists unlike what the old conservatives used to be.

Do you any clue at all what you are talking about here?????????????

The decision by the sumpreme court just backs the law that allows local governments to buy up land if needed to improve the cities, they didn't decide anything here they just let the law stand. This has been happening for a long time.

How do you think I-66 was built, this same law :doh:

For those that think if your home was worth $100K and it's value is at $500K then they screw you and give you the 100K. The problem in that logic is the homes they are looking to use ARE NOT IN THAT TYPE OF AREA, they are rundown areas, that have nothing to give to the community anymore, this isn't done in an established neighborhoods where everything is in great shape.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Larry

I'm with Ghost, again.

In my experience, local government is far more corrupt than the higher levels. (Well, maybe it's a case of "they hide their corruption much less".)

I've lived, for example, in places where the largest real estate developer in the state's wife was on the county commission, and was in charge of the county zoning office.

Remember, for example: Every single case you hear of where somebody decided that siezing a chunk of land so they can give (not even sell) the land to a Wal-Mart, began with a decision at the "local" level.

My theory for this is that, frankly, the typical voter (including, I'm ashamed to say, myself) simply doesn't pay attention to even his state government, let alone the local stuff.

The folks at the local level are a lot cheaper to buy, and nobody's watching.

(Heck, the most power-hungry, abusive, authoritarian body most people can find is your neighborhood homeowners association.)

There will always be corruption and abuses, but once they cross a certain line, I believe the people won't tolerate it anymore. The system isn't perfect and people are going to get the short end of the stick every once in a while, but there is a limit to how far it can go. It would be far too expensive to try to litigate out every single dispute over public or non-public uses, so voting on an answer is the cheaper and more efficient solution.

I don't think that in most towns, you could bulldoze a neighborhood to build a Wal-Mart without some significant political repercussions. Everyone keeps bringing up sensationalist situations, but in New London, Connecticut, this wasn't about bulldozing a neighborhood for a Wal-Mart at all. This was redevelopment of downtown waterfront area - not significantly different from what DC is trying to do in Southeast with the Nationals' new stadium.

There are times when rampant corruption will cause a local government to step far beyond the bounds of "public" use, and the courts should certainly intervene in those cases. However, if there's a question about the definition of "public", I'd prefer that it be decided by the public, at the most local level possible - somewhere where the homeowners actually have a voice.

Maybe people are too lazy to pay attention to these issues, but if that's the case, I say we all deserve to have our homes taken by the government. If we all really don't care about this enough to pay attention, I think that means it's not really a big deal. When it does become a big deal - when the government sells out the entire neighborhood on a bribe or they try to close down everybody's favorite store on the corner ... at some point the people will fight back.

We can't rely on the Supreme Court to protect us all the time. We can protest, we can write new laws, and we can vote people out of office. In a democracy, some modicum of responsibility has to fall on the people.

And here's the Washington Post's take on the issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301698.html

Eminent Latitude

Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A30

IT'S HARD TO TAKE satisfaction in the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the case of Kelo v. City of New London -- the result of which is quite unjust. Yet the court's decision was correct.

New London, Conn., has been attempting to take the property of residents of Fort Trumbull, an economically struggling area, for a redevelopment project that would replace their waterfront neighborhood homes with a hotel, offices and other new features. A few residents refused to sell, so the city -- or rather, a private, nonprofit corporation acting on its behalf -- asserted the power of eminent domain to force them to sell. The Supreme Court ruled that the city has the right to do so, which means that people who have lived for long periods in Fort Trumbull will be forced from their homes based on a vague and uncertain redevelopment scheme. It isn't a pretty picture.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires government to pay "just compensation" whenever it takes private property, and the Fort Trumbull residents will be compensated. But it further requires that "takings" be for "public use," and it was this requirement that residents cited in their lawsuit. They contended that the city was taking their land not for any legitimate public use but for the benefit of businesses -- essentially that the government was exchanging one set of private owners for another that would pay more taxes and bring jobs to the city.

The trouble is that there is no good way to distinguish New London's use of eminent domain from assertions of the power that local governments depend on all the time for worthy projects. Railroads, stadiums, inner-city redevelopment plans and land reform efforts all have involved taking land from one owner for the apparently private use of another. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted for a five-justice majority of the court, the justices' response has long been to avoid "rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny" of legislative determinations "in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."

This is not to say that a "public use" is anything government says it is. If the supposed public use were plainly a pretext for a simple private-sector land transfer, the court would presumably step in. But that is not the case here. New London's plan, whatever its flaws, is intended to help develop a city that has been in economic decline for many years. City authorities may be wrong in their judgment that their plans are a good way to revitalize the town. But the Fifth Amendment's takings clause was never meant to ensure good judgment or wise policy. Indeed, it was intended less as a restraint on the substance of what government does than as a guarantee that it will pay reasonably. However unfortunate New London's plans may prove, stopping the city based on a standardless judicial inquiry into how "public" its purpose really is would be far worse.