End of Freedom in America?

[scrapinpeg]

Interesting how it was the liberal justices who said it's okay for the government to take private property to benefit a private corporation, on the theory that the private corporation will pay more taxes, so that's the public benefit -- while it was the conservative justices who screamed to high heaven that this was outrageous.

This is sort of the problem with judicial activism. By pushing the definitions further and further, you get results that are clearly contrary to what the words were intended to mean.

At least in this case, the judicial activism was too much for even the political liberals, and they're pushing hard for new legislation in the individual states to preclude such takings. Thereby fulfilling the judicial conservative's credo that changes in the law should be left to the elected legislature.

Ahh, irony.

[jBirch]

They ruled that the town fathers could take from citizen A and give to citizen B for a supposed economic stimulus. They expanded the concept of "public use" (thank you Berman v Parker) to include anything that could concievably benefit the public including private commerce. That defacto nullifies the protections of the Fifth Amendment, it's been turned on it's head. The very thing the Founding Brothers were afraid of has come to pass. The nanny state rules supreme... as long as it's for a "public use".

How was this taking not purely for economic benefit? To revitalize a "dying" town? Towns live and die just like anything else. With their death, property becomes MUCH cheaper. It's sad but aren't death, decay and rebirth the way nature works? This way the town fathers can enjoy the increased tax revenues with the blessings of our Supremes. Public use, indeed.

Seems a pretty straight constitutional ruling to me. 10th Ammendment states that all powers not granted to the federal government are the responsibility of the States. The fifth only requires that you be subject to due process and justly compensated. Since there is no constitutional provision or definition for "due process" and "justly compensated" it is, by virtue of the 10th, pretty clearly up to the States' legislature to determine. I assume that the town in question put the matter through "due process" and compensated the owners "justly" and so the matter is rightly one for the State's legislature and not the purvue of the Federal government through the Supreme court.

Why is noone complaining that the State didn't have any laws to prevent the arbitrary seizure of land for economic reasons? Why is it the fault of the Supreme Court for not upholding a non-existent law?

James.

[keith]

Why is noone complaining that the State didn't have any laws to prevent the arbitrary seizure of land for economic reasons? Why is it the fault of the Supreme Court for not upholding a non-existent law?

James.

cognitive dissonance.

After all the whole point of the Supreme Court is judicial activism. Slapping down the elected branch when they pass laws that contravene the constitution or slapping down the populace when they think they have rights they don't; as they, the supreme court, interpret it.

[gojujay]

Seems a pretty straight constitutional ruling to me. 10th Ammendment states that all powers not granted to the federal government are the responsibility of the States. The fifth only requires that you be subject to due process and justly compensated.

And that a siezure be for public use. What I have a problem with is that the definition of public use is being expanded. It now means a public benefit and even that is being expanded.

Since there is no constitutional provision or definition for "due process" and "justly compensated" it is, by virtue of the 10th, pretty clearly up to the States' legislature to determine.

Which is why J. Stephens wrote in the opinion for the majority that the issue of just compensation may deserve to be reviewed by the court, but not in the context of the arguments put forth by plaintiff Kelo et. al.

I assume that the town in question put the matter through "due process" and compensated the owners "justly" and so the matter is rightly one for the State's legislature and not the purvue of the Federal government through the Supreme court.

Assuming due process is real and not a charade, allowing the siezure of property from citizen A to be given to citizen B.

Why is noone complaining that the State didn't have any laws to prevent the arbitrary seizure of land for economic reasons? Why is it the fault of the Supreme Court for not upholding a non-existent law?

James.

Some people are. This act spurred many State legislatures to propose just such amendments or laws for themselves.

[jBirch]

And that a siezure be for public use. What I have a problem with is that the definition of public use is being expanded. It now means a public benefit and even that is being expanded.

I think the principal of "if it's not specifically proscribed, it's allowed" is the theory here. Since there are no laws defining precisely what is "public use" then any conceivable utility to the public must be allowed. This is the only rational and legal interpretation to the laws of the US. If the Supreme court had imposed it's own definition of "public use" on the case and then ruled according to that definition, then that would be an example (in my mind) of "legislating from the bench".

I don't think the term is being "expanded", rather, it was never constrained to begin with. I suppose that its definition is something that should be added as a constitutional ammendment to clarify the issue or left to the States to legislate as they see fit.

Assuming due process is real and not a charade, allowing the siezure of property from citizen A to be given to citizen B.

This is something that could and should be ruled upon by a body like the Supreme Court. Did the town offer just compensation according to objective metrics for the region in question and did it follow due process as prescribed by the State Legislature? If they didn't then there is constitutional protection. If they did, then buddy is out of luck.

Some people are. This act spurred many State legislatures to propose just such amendments or laws for themselves.

Sounds like a positive outcome then.

James.

[gojujay]

I think the principal of "if it's not specifically proscribed, it's allowed" is the theory here. Since there are no laws defining precisely what is "public use" then any conceivable utility to the public must be allowed.

Then why bother with the phrase in the first place? It must have a meaning or it's so much wasted ink.

This is the only rational and legal interpretation to the laws of the US. If the Supreme court had imposed it's own definition of "public use" on the case and then ruled according to that definition, then that would be an example (in my mind) of "legislating from the bench".

Ah, but they did do that in Berman v. Parker, upon which the majority justified the taking of the plaintiff's property on an economic development necessity.

I don't think the term is being "expanded", rather, it was never constrained to begin with.

Then why did this case ever come up for review?

I suppose that its definition is something that should be added as a constitutional ammendment to clarify the issue or left to the States to legislate as they see fit.

"It is well established that... the question [of] what is a public use is a judicial one" Cincinnati v. Vester 281 U.S. 439, 446 (1930). These are competing interests; individual Citizen versus the State. If the State legislatures were the only ones to determine what is public use and what is private then the restraints placed on the Governments is so much mental masturbation... it sounds good but there ain't much of a result.

This is something that could and should be ruled upon by a body like the Supreme Court. Did the town offer just compensation according to objective metrics for the region in question and did it follow due process as prescribed by the State Legislature? If they didn't then there is constitutional protection. If they did, then buddy is out of luck.

As I said earlier:

Which is why J. Stephens wrote in the opinion for the majority that the issue of just compensation may deserve to be reviewed by the court, but not in the context of the arguments put forth by plaintiff Kelo et. al.

Sounds like a positive outcome then.

Sounds like the leftist, big government majority dropped the ball. Now it's up to civil libertarians to pick it up and carry it as best they can now that the "protector" of the Bill of Rights has abdicated that position.