Are you suggesting that it's OK for a government to force someone to sell their property to someone else against their will? We're not talking about forcing a sell to build a highway or a school (a public purpose as defined in the 5th Amendment), we're talking about governments being allowed to force the sale of private property to another private entity, such as a corporation. If you're for that, then what limits are there on government? Can governments get away with doing anything they want to anyone, all in the name of "the public good?"
The idea that private property can be taken from one private individual for another's benefit certainly doesn't date back to the writing of the Constitution. As Instapundit (and law professor) Glenn Reynolds notes, in 1833, Justice Joseph Story wrote,
It seems to be the general opinion, fortified by a strong current of judicial opinion, that since the American revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A. and transfer it to B. by a mere legislative act. A government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon a legislative body, without any restraint.
The impact of this decision isn't limited to individual homes, it applies to businesses as well. For example, I saw a story earlier today about a town in Texas that wants to close two fish companies to put in an expensive marina. So what if the employees at those companies are put out of work - we've got rich boat owners to appease!
Just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it doesn't make it right. They were wrong in Dred Scott. They were wrong in "Separate but Equal". They were wrong about the Japanese internees. And they were wrong yesterday with Kelo v New London.
Current Events » in reply to So we can get it on the record:
Let me see if I understand you...
The whole thread (90 posts)
- CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures"
- I'm hearing that there were a lot of questionable "Eminent Domain" actions that are now proceeding because of this decision.
- High Court Justices' Property at Risk
- The power of imminent domain...
- The rest of the decision:
- The gist of this decision:
- Odds are good that middle- and lower-class property owners...
- Tell that to the people in CT...
- Also, about lost income, I referred to rental income.
- no income is lost............
- Strange bedfellows
- The issue is the "uniqueness" that is inherent in each piece of real-property
- re: bedfellows
- The Supreme Court is ruling on its authority to abrogate a local law.
- Strange bedfellows
- no income is lost............
- So we can get it on the record:
- Also, about lost income, I referred to rental income.
- Tell that to the people in CT...
- Odds are good that middle- and lower-class property owners...
- Going back to the point that language has meaning and misuse leads to emotional misunderstanding..
- jWow! Scalia and Thomas came down on the side of people!!!
- Sounds like a BAD decision to me.
- re: CNN: "High court OKs personal property seizures"