Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> This thread is just way out of hand[1], but if you're speaking of the US
> Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently
> bought the MSM's spin on it.
Nope, tend to ignore MSM for the rubbish it is.
> All the Court did in that case was
> reaffirm at least 50 (and arguably 200) years' worth of constitutional
> law: decisions about land use should be made _locally_ and not be
> second-guessed by the 9 probably-out-of-touch folks who happen to sit on
> the US Supreme Court.
That's the excuse given which doesn't hold water because even local law
officals are beholden to the Constitution. I'm sorry but the phrase "nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" is
hard to mangle into "Taking property from one private individual and giving it
to another individual because they would generate more tax revenue" based on
the notion of "decisions about land use should be made locally".
> Whether what happened in New London was bad
> _policy_ (something I'll not argue) it violated no constitutional
> _principle_.
Bull. Protections against private property are very much the core of
constitutional principle and that was grossly violated.
> I thought libertarians - and I had the impression you, Mr.
> Lamb, consider yourself one - preferred local to national decision
> making.
I do. But I do not believe "local decision making" trumps one's right to
personal property. Why? Because that's as local as you can get. It's is
*my* land and *I* decide whether to sell it or not. The local "planning
board" is one step removed from the most local authority of that land, the owner.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature