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.
OK, then you've bought the right-wing ranters' version of what the Kelo decision said.
> 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".
Have you read the Kelo decision? Apparently not. The Court
made it abundantly clear that taking property from one private owner
and giving it to another would violate the "public use" limitation (if
that's what it is - textual analysis could go either way) of the
Takings Clause, and that that is NOT what happened in New London.
And it's not. The "taking" was part of a comprehensive land-use
development.
> 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.
Bull back at you, if that's the level on which you wish to conduct the
discussion. The constitution _explicitly_ contemplates that
private property _may_ be taken for public use upon payment of just
compensation (i.e. fair market value). Who should make the
decision whether exercise of the eminent domain power is appropriate?
> 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.