I agree with you Adolph.

Signed, Joseph.

There’s been an enormous uproar over this case lately, and for good reason. The liberal wing of the Supreme Court has in effect voted in favor of local statism, by ruling that eminent domain applies even in cases where the land is being marked for pr…

The practice that SCOTUS let go is immoral. I have no doubt of that, but the place to argue morality is not SCOTUS, which has proved to be disastrously unable to make moral judgments. The matter should be decided in the legislatures of the sovereign states.

One of the problems with Kelo is that there are very few facts cited in the opinion to explain whether Phizer came to New London and said “take this land and sell it to me and I’ll build a new plant” — that has been and should remain a prohibited taking. On the other hand, was this a more traditional redevelopment effort where Pfizer showed up later to express an interest in purchasing formerly blighted land — that has been permitted under constitutional law, and apparently will still be permitted after Kelo.

Your commenters who state that the states should act to restrict what, when, where and how the power of eminent domain should be employed are right on. That is the best approach to reining in overly aggressive government action.

To paraphrase Stalin.

The Judges are not august [to include the implication of Augustus Caesar]. You can howl all you want, but you keep avoiding the obvious. The judiciary must be directly accountable to the people. There is no need for a flag, property, prayer, etc. admendments. There is a single one need for the judges like the Senators a hundred years ago, to face the people directly for their offices. Avoid the simple route and end up with an EU style Consitution which grows to cover every possible ‘Dred Scott’ decision of the court.

“Screw the flag” is a property issue too; by gawd, I paid for it I’ll do as I please with it.

Also: I suspect potential taxes from ambitious developers are chimeras more often than city councils recognize. Boosters run local governments. That isn’t necessarily bad – Austin traffic is a pretty good example of what’s wrong with hippy zoning & I’d prefer an optimist on my city council. But boosters need restraints. When the housing development or the industry doesn’t take off, little tax revenue actually hits the city’s coffers; meanwhile, the old, steady, boring base is lost.

If we’re lucky, state legislatures will address the issue by passing reasonable eminent-domain laws that preempt independent action by local govts. That’s how some of the better state govts handled local govts that passed abusive anti-gun laws. Citizens of states that don’t reign in eminent-domain abuses might find their property values lower as compared to states that do.

Congress doesn’t have the balls to impeach the five justices who voted for this POS, but tarring and feathering might be the next best alternative.

The Supreme Court ruled today that encouraging economic development by seizing one private individual’s property and handing it over to a second private individual was a Constitutionally valid interpretation of the 5th Amendment’s takings clause. Holy …

In my view the theory of incorporation of the bill of rights into the 14th Amendment is a crock. Therefor, in my view, the takings clause does not apply to the states and the judgment in Kelso is correct for the wrong reason.

If the condemnor had been the Federal Government, I would have thought the judgment wrong. There the takings clause should be read in conjunction with Art. I Se. 8. The only provisons of that section which allow the Federal government to acquire properties are:

“To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

“to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;”

Which define the public uses referred to in Amend V.

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

Individual states can prevent the state and local governments from abusing imminent domain. On the Federal level, we would need to pass a amendment reasserting the traditional interpretation of the taking clause.

5-4. And perhaps we could hear the last of leftist cliches that the Souters & Ginsbergs of this world fight for the “little man” against “big business.” All either big or small business needs is predictability, which is dependent on transparency and property laws. What could be worse than that some idiot could take you out of a profitable corridor for “the general good.”

Will this affect the housing bubble? It seems pregnant with unintended consequences.

Isn’t there some other kind of constitutional process to undo this damage?

P.S. Note the four who dissented: O’Connor (”Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.” ), Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.