Ammo For Sale

« « Is Ragsdale going to run for Governor? | Home | Constitutional Atrocity » »

I hear this one all the time

In defense of Kelo, the argument used to justify it or to quell the masses usually goes something like this:

The Supreme Court in Kelo simply recognized that the State of Connecticut had made a series of legislative choices, spurred by aggressive lobbying from developers, that allowed local officials to take with just compensation private property and then turn the land over to private economic developers.

While that is true (and shame on them), there is also the issue that the bill of rights applies to state government’s as well. The fifth amendment states:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Private development is not public use. The significance of Kelo is that the supreme court had the chance to assert that the fifth amendment means something and it did not.

5 Responses to “I hear this one all the time”

  1. ben Says:

    Yeah, and it was the stoopid liberal judges too. Photon torpedos away!

  2. Tennessee Values Authority Says:

    I don’t know if the “stoopid liberal judges” were any more or less culpable than the “conservative judges” in this particular case. I do know, however, that it seems lately whenever the courts have an opportunity to assert that a constitutional amendment means something, they usually don’t. As someone else once said, let the Iraqis have our Constitution. It’s a pretty good one and we’re apparently not using it anymore.

  3. PLF on Eminent Domain Says:

    I Thought The Constitution Was Supposed to Protect Us From Government

    by Timothy Sandefur Did everyone see Washington Post writer Andrew Cohen’s we’re from the government and we’re here to help attitude toward eminent domain? It’s darkly amusing how the left is trying to spin eminent domain reform. Oh, we think

  4. tgirsch Says:

    Well, from a strict construction point of view, there’s no prohibition whatsoever on takings for private use. It simply says that if land is taken for public use, fair compensation must be offered. It says nothing whatsoever about takings for non-public use. Presumably, whether this can happen (and what must happen if it does) is an issue for the states. From a strict construction perspective, of course…

    🙂

  5. Standard Mischief Says:

    tgirsch,

    It’s true that the Fed-Gov was not granted the power to take private property for private use.

    So I would have to say in that case, that the state’s constitution must specifically grant the state government the power to take private property for private use, otherwise that right resides with the landowner.

    As an aside, way back when, Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to buy Sugerloaf Mountain, here near D.C., for use as a Presidential retreat. However, Gordon Strong wasn’t interested in selling. I’m pretty amazed that FDR didn’t grab it anyway (for public purposes, of course), because he sure as hell ran a bunch of families off their land so he could create his great east coast national park (Shenandoah). I guess they were just a bunch of yokels anyway (kidding).