You really nailed it on the comment about one of the reasons the country was started. Pursuit of Happiness was originally pursuit of property in one of the early drafts.
My house straddles a double house lot. Obviously, if two houses were built here it would pay twice the tax revenue. According to the SC, a developer could get the city to take the property to accomplish this end.
I disagree with your resignation to the unfortunate consequence of an interpretation you don’t like. The Constitution is the only real protection of minority rights. Now if a majority wants your property, you lose it. The system is not working.
On the other hand, if maybe the Court would pay attention to what the document says and what the Founders meant, you have a different scenario. But I know that is too Originalist or Strict Constructionist for you.
as an fyi, the line of reasoning employed by the court in kelo is not new–goes back a loooong ways. as a further fyi, the kelo decision is pretty well in keeping with supreme court precedent. they could’ve reached a different decision in kelo to draw a line in the sand, but it wouldn’t have been as logically consistent with precedent. still a bad decision though.
Well… Because not all people have the same opinions on things, we’re necessarily going to have different interpretations of the Constitution by the S.Ct. There are going to be times when you disagree with the Court… there will be times I disagree with the Court, and there may even be times we both disagree with the Court.
As far as my “resignation” as an unfortunate consequence of an interpretation I don’t like, I’m not sure I understand your argument. The system worked the way it always works. A majority of the court made the decision. This time, though, it seems those who usually protect the individual, didn’t.
I guess I don’t understand that comment at all. The crew that voted for this decision is the crew that nearly always votes to empower the government except in certain liberal issues like abortion. This is nearly the same crew that interpreted “congress shall make no law” into Congress can abridge Freedom of Speech. How can you say they protect the individual? They often protect favored groups such as when they intepret prohibitions against racial discrimination to require racial discrimination, but they seldom protect individuals.
This wasn’t an interpretation. This was a removal of the words public use from the Fifth Amendment. Why would you resign yourself to that? I won’t. We need some justices that will read the Constitution instead of deciding what they think is “right” based on their personal policy preferences.
I am guessing you are going to argue that this in fact an interpretation. If so, please explain how their interpretation would be different if the words public use were not included in the Fifth Amendment. The honest answer is that there would be no difference, therefore, the majority edited those words out.
Isn’t this just a redefinition (one that I don’t like) of the term “public use” in the 5th Amendment? I don’t see them striking a line through the term, just (from what I’m reading below) finally and fully defining it to mean what the lay person wouldn’t assume the term means.
Hopefully there will be a lot of State definitions that make abuses of this illegal.
“Isn’t this just a redefinition (one that I don’t like) of the term “public use” in the 5th Amendment?”
I think Art’s view, and I would tend to agree, is that yes, the redefined “public use.” They redefined it to mean “public or private use so long as there might be some percieved long term potential benefit to someone in the community.” I’m not all that smart on 5th Amendment issues, but this decision seems to be a gross misinterpretation of what the framers intended.
I’m definitely not disagreeing. However, (as someone above has pointed out) this isn’t the first ruling on this issue ever, and it shows a clear progression that we all should have realized would be the ruling for this case.
It’s been a long road from the original framers to where we are today.
While I don’t like the implications of the ruling, I don’t always agree with the “it’s not what the framers had in mind” argument because they didn’t have in mind the modern world, or many of the improvements in civil liberties that came about in the 20th century. We tend to assign this overwhelming benevolence to the framers when I think that grossly overestimates the quality of character of many involved in the process. But I guess it is a case of “do as I say, not as I do”. Many of them were amazing and great men (in that or any time), but many of them weren’t looking out for the little guy.
Sure they redefined public use. They defined it to mean whatever a majority of the local government prefers.
As for me, I kind of think public use probably means something along the lines of public use. That is just me though, and I have been informed in prior discussions that I am not well informed.
Even worse, I think those entrusted with interpreting the Constitution should try confine themselves when possible to the clear meaning as presented in the actual document. Again, I am obviously uninformed, since on its surface it is a very simple document written with clarity and great precision.
I think I’m up to my 30th lost post due to my work internet connection, awesome.
To sum up what I had tried to post:
I’m playing the devil’s advocate here, but the Constitution may be simple on its surface, but in its implementation and practice it has never been very clear. And if public use is defined by the local government, then just make sure the right people are elected locally (and I note that this shouldn’t just mean that people who agree with you on all issues are elected, rather logical and practical people who will carry out the government based on what is the will of the people and in the best interests of the people). If local constituents make it clear that they do not wish for broad powers of eminent domain to be utilized, then no one will abuse the ruling.
And what I find to be interesting is no one looks at the consensus reaction to this ruling and says “Wow, we really are a lot more alike than we thought.”
I am about as politically active as most people come, but I can only name two of my five local city council members. These elections are nonpartisan. I can’t tell you whether they are Democrats or Republicans. I have no clue what position they might have on emminent domain. I do know what their philosophy of providing police protection is and their positions on development. It is on such issues that I and most others select local government.
I can’t even imagine selecting them on emminent domain philosophy. What does that have to with picking up the trash?
The Constitution is supposed to be the vehicle to protect the individual in general, and his property rights in particular, from the majority. The words public use, now edited out by five judges, were part of that protection.
I agree that sometimes things are complicated, but sometimes they are very simple too. This case was the latter.
“I don’t always agree with the “it’s not what the framers had in mind” argument because they didn’t have in mind the modern world, or many of the improvements in civil liberties that came about in the 20th century.”
I agree with this statement in general, but it is too often used as justification for interpreting the Consitution to suit someone’s own point of view. “Oh, well the framers could never have anticipated XXX.”
In this case, I think the framers wanted to avoid conditions they may have seen in England where aristocracy was able to take land from local property owners for their own use. I don’t see how the idea of govt taking property from a private person so it can be given to a private commercial entity falls outside of what the framers could have envisioned. They wanted to protect private property ownership rights, and this ruling seems to fly in the face of that intent. Anyways, I hope it is exercised responsibly, but I won’t be surprised to hear news stories about local govt employees reieving bribes to rule in favor of some business that wants to force a property owner off his land.
In this case, I think the framers wanted to avoid conditions they may have seen in England where aristocracy was able to take land from local property owners for their own use.
Home run.
I’m not down with the whole “framer’s intent” idea at all, but there can be little doubt that this is 100% true.
It was rather worse than that. At the time of the founding of the country, England was still an almost feudal system. The land essentially belonged to the king who chartered it out to the various members of the nobility who in turn subchartered it out to lower members of the nobility. The King took it back or gave it to other members of the nobility as political conditions changed.
America changed all that by allowing direct private property ownership for the masses. The first thing my dirt poor Irish ancestors did when they got here was to get title to the piece of dirt they tried to scratch a living from, even though they couldn’t even read the deed.
I am intrigued by your chiming in on this. I had assumed you were in the “it is alright to interpret the Constitution without regard to its words so long as I agree with the result club.” Am I mistaken?
I had assumed you were in the “it is alright to interpret the Constitution without regard to its words so long as I agree with the result club.” Am I mistaken?
As I said, I’m not a fan of the “framer’s intent” argument, but I think it’s fairly ridiculous (and childish) to characterize any view on Constitutional interpretation as completely averse to actually reading the document and seeing what it says.
If anything, I’m even more strict in that I advocate sticking to the words of the Constitution itself rather than trying to read tea leaves and imagine the reactions of rich, white slaveowners centuries dead.
I don’t think a “results only” club exists outside the paranoid conservative mind.
As for me, I kind of think public use probably means something along the lines of public use.
except earlier you mention that you would be ok with, for example, condemnation of land for a private electrical plant that provided power to the public. seems like you are ok with some “redefining” of public use, but no others. despite that, you insist on trying to make this about activist judges, etc. so which is it? does public use mean the public literally needs access or does it mean public benefit?
You can slice the salami as much as you want to come up with decisions that can be intellectually argued either way. The public certainly uses an electric power facility by way of essentially universal usage of its product. I suppose someone could logically argue otherwise. Eventually the argument gets so tortured, as in this case, so as to be just plain silly.
Saying CA medical marijuana affects interstate commerce is another example. I oppose medical marijuana laws, but I don’t see where the feds get off using the interstate commerce power to tell California how to handle its policies.
In my humble opinion this is just a “continutation” of the trend. The trend is that “government knows best”. It started years ago with various laws, all that infringe on ones right.
It would seem that as long as these “laws” seemed to be a good idea, despite a minor abridgement of our or others rights, it was ok. These “laws” continue to be ever more imposing, but most just “let them go” as “that won’t ever effect me”.
I guess it has always suprised me how people will argue for taking away someones rights or allowing their rights to be taken away yet are surprised when other rights of their’s are infringed upon.
To me it’s fairly simple. Take care of your self and be responsible for yourself and have freedom or expect someone else to take care of you and hand your freedom to them.
the public most certainly does not “use” a private utility. they derive benefit from it in the form of a ready and consistent power supply, but they aren’t using the land in any way. once you cross over to a benefit analysis, things get a bit trickier.