Public use = he who can make the most $$ from it.....
The USSC's decision in Kelo is frightening. And many other bloggers have probably beat the dead horse into dust by now. However, some (donutbuzz - see links at right) even take to chastizing us for our rampant consumerism fueling such government/private enterprise/big business co-mingling, and he may have a point. But, this is such a repugnant decision, I have to at least comment, and at the risk of boring you to death, it'll be brief, and probably not full of too many fireworks.
The bottom line is the effect of this decision is surely, surely, surely, something that the framers would absolutely not agree with. And before we go any further, spare me the crap about "oh, well, they also had slaves back then too."
Taking one person's property and essentially giving it to another, by way of government seizure, would be repugnant to even the most ardent Federalist in 1789. To take private property and make a road, a school, a government building, or a park even, is one thing. But to take it merely on the basis that some OTHER private individual will make more dollars with it, is absurd. Where's the line? What if my business employs three people? And someone comes in with a plan to employ FOUR? Will the mantra of economic development (I'd like to knock the shit out of the next politician who utters such a garbage phrase in my presence - but I'd settle for just knocking the shit out of anyone who works in the development office) demand that emminent domain proceedings begin immediately if one more job can be created? If not, could someone please tell me where the line is so I'll know what I'm dealing with the next time I'm considering buying some property.
I know, I know, Stevens said that this in now way limits the ability of the individual States to limit when and where ED can be used, and that Kelo essentially establishes the floor for what can pass for "public use." But it still is repugnant to the very ideals the founders had in mind when they decided to try this wacky idea of the USA 200+ years ago.
Oh, and for those who don't think this will cause the sky to fall? It's already started. We've already seen that 40 million bucks per year isn't enough to stop ED proceedings.
The bottom line is the effect of this decision is surely, surely, surely, something that the framers would absolutely not agree with. And before we go any further, spare me the crap about "oh, well, they also had slaves back then too."
Taking one person's property and essentially giving it to another, by way of government seizure, would be repugnant to even the most ardent Federalist in 1789. To take private property and make a road, a school, a government building, or a park even, is one thing. But to take it merely on the basis that some OTHER private individual will make more dollars with it, is absurd. Where's the line? What if my business employs three people? And someone comes in with a plan to employ FOUR? Will the mantra of economic development (I'd like to knock the shit out of the next politician who utters such a garbage phrase in my presence - but I'd settle for just knocking the shit out of anyone who works in the development office) demand that emminent domain proceedings begin immediately if one more job can be created? If not, could someone please tell me where the line is so I'll know what I'm dealing with the next time I'm considering buying some property.
I know, I know, Stevens said that this in now way limits the ability of the individual States to limit when and where ED can be used, and that Kelo essentially establishes the floor for what can pass for "public use." But it still is repugnant to the very ideals the founders had in mind when they decided to try this wacky idea of the USA 200+ years ago.
Oh, and for those who don't think this will cause the sky to fall? It's already started. We've already seen that 40 million bucks per year isn't enough to stop ED proceedings.
posted by bingmanch at 8:26 PM
4 comments
