Supreme Court ruled private property can be seized

[The Duke]

It should be pointed out exactly how ludicrous this decision is, past Supreme Court decisions being merely somewhat ludcirous.

The 5th Amendment reads as follows:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Constitution not only requires that property seizures be converted to public and not private use, it does not even consider the possibility of a government seizing private property for transfer to another private citizen as a serious enough prospect to explicitly reject it!  The Constitution leaves the distinct impression that the only time a rational government would even consider taking private property is for purely public use.

And no, Justice Stevens, a use that generates additional tax revenue is not "public".

To substantiate the idea that The Constitution prohibits the seizure of private property for the private use of another, Justice O'Connor quotes the opinion of Justice Samuel Chase in 1798:

"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it."

Chase's opinion is particularly relevant because Justice Steven's arrogantly asserts that "Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek."  Steven's can't say that precedent goes back any further than that, because if he tried to trace his logic and connect it to the text of the Fifth Amendment and the intent of the authors of that Amendment, he'd fail miserably as there is no reasonable connection.  He only credits himself 100 years of precedent because there is 120 years of precedent stretching back before that contradicts him!

It should also be noted, and Stevens admits to this, that the property being seized is NOT a blighted area.  He writes, "Ten of the parcels are occupied by the owner or a family member; the other five are held as investment properties. There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."

Rules that subject blighted areas do NOT apply here, as no one claims that these are blighted areas.  The Majority decides to cover up this fact by repeating that New London has been designated a "Distressed Municipality".  But this is a very general designation, and does not mean that all land in New London is distressed.  They try to generate the impression that the Pfizer plant (Its not even a shopping mall tehy're building, its a goddam Pfizer plant!) will replace a blighted neighborhood, when the facts (as the Justices are forced to admit) are quite different.

[The Duke]

Correct me if I'm wrong (not been following this all that much) but does the ruling mean that it's legal for whatever layer of government to seize private property and develop it itself or that it's now legal for whatever layer of government to seize private property and hand it over to private developers?

Governmetn can now hand private property over to another private owner if it believes that the new owner can produce something that is, in the state's view, more beneficial to society.  In this case, private homeowners will lose their homes to make way for a pharmaceutical research facility owned by Pfizer.  Justice Stevens justifies this on the grounds that Pfizer will create jobs and produce more tax revenue than the current owners do.

[The Duke]

Not permitting eminent domain creates all sorts of hold-out problems that impede progress.  If a government want to initiate a revitalization project in a blighted area of a city, they need to have the power to seize existing property at its correct value.  The current owners should be compensated for this value as well as all other associated expenses.  That is, they should be left no worse off than before the property was seized. 

If it were up to existing owners to sell their property at whatever price they could get from the city or the developers, this would give a huge advantage to whatever owners were the last to hold-out; they could extort an completely exorbitant price, and the city would have no choice but to pay it, because they've already purchased the surrounding property.  This in turn gives all the property owners a disintentive to ever sell, because they want to be the ones to hold out for an extortionary price.   

Urban renewal would be basically impossible with eminent domain.  Again, if you don't agree with a particular project, then vote against the officials who are advocating it.  But this is a question of political policy and not constitutionality.

No one is criticizing eminent domain, we are criticizing the Constitutionality of eminent domain to serve the interest of a preferred group of private citizens over another.

As I said before, even Justice Stevens admits that this is NOT a blighted area!

I guarantee you, this issue will be a litmus test for voters in New London for many years.  And I guarantee you that these people's homes will still be bulldozed and their ocean views still given to a pharmaceutical company.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition. So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional. There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong. The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

The proper way to get around such ambiguities is to discern the intent of the authors of a law.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would never have ruled that confiscation of property to give to a massive corporation in order to get more tax revenue is a "public use".

Your implication is that the Constitution should be mutated to serve whatever you think is beneficial to the public reeks of fascism, as it removes all effective limits on government power and makes all right of citizens subjective.

[The Duke]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

As Emsworth said, Pareto efficiency is irrelevant.  This is a thread about the validity of a court ruling, not about policy making.  Economic development is not a public use as understood by the authors of the Fifth Amendment.

As far as policy making goes, you are focusing only on financial gain or loss.  There is no dollar figure you can put on your rights.  When you take away the Constitutional Rights of an individual you've taken something away that's worth more than whatever these people were given for their compensation.

[The Duke]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

As Emsworth said, Pareto efficiency is irrelevant.  This is a thread about the validity of a court ruling, not about policy making.  Economic development is not a public use as understood by the authors of the Fifth Amendment.

As far as policy making goes, you are focusing only on financial gain or loss.  There is no dollar figure you can put on your rights.  When you take away the Constitutional Rights of an individual you've taken something away that's worth more than whatever these people were given for their compensation.

Efficiency is important here because we are talking about a case where the Court could have gone either way in their intepretation.  Neither interpretation is wrong from the plain language of the constitution, so the Court fortunately chose to interpret the phrasing in the way that would allow government to best  do their job and promote social welfare.

Plus, I think most of the people who oppose this decision oppose it not because they are all that attached to a particular wording in the constitution, but because they think it is bad policy.  I'm trying to explain why it is actually good policy.  Does anyone here think the decision is a good one policy-wise, but still disagree with it because they think it is an incorrect constitutional interpretation?

Actually, no.  Efficiency isn't relevant.  The whole point of Constitutional Rights for Citizens is to ensure that inconvenient rights are still protected.

[The Duke]

So when deciding between two equally valid interpretations of  constitutional wording, the court shouldn't take into account which interpretation would most benefit society?

I disagree that your interpretation of the Constitution is equally valid.

Now you care about what the authors thought?
To bad you can't keep that line of thinking regarding the "welfare clause", or the "interestate commerce" clause.

We should be strict in interpeting that portion of the Constitution that protects rights, as they are permanent.  They don't change.

We should give the government flexibility in carrying out its powers, as the needs of the people ARE ever changing.  If you'd like for us to add an Amendment to the US Constitution giving the Congress an explicit authorization to create an Air Force, we can do that.  No one hear can doubt that we have the votes.  But its also a tremendously tedious excercise.

In short, a stricter standard should be applied to rights than to powers, as I think there are major differences between them.

[The Duke]

So when deciding between two equally valid interpretations of  constitutional wording, the court shouldn't take into account which interpretation would most benefit society?

I disagree that your interpretation of the Constitution is equally valid.

First of all, I think that just about any case that gets all the way to the Supreme Court is a "close case" where either side has a reasonable argument for their interpretation.  In these case, the Court must consider the policy implication, and almost always does so.

But moreover, the more expansive interpretation of "public use" has been the prevailing interpretation in most states for most of our country's history...at least since the 1870's.  The more restrictive definition is usually encompassed by the term of art "public purpose", which the courts often distinguish from "public use."

In any case, it's really pretty disingenous to dismiss my policy arguments by claiming my textual interpretation is unquestionably wrong when most courts and scholars throughout history say it is not only colorable, but in fact correct.

Nick, nobody asked you what "most legal scholars  throughout history" say.  Its quite obvious that this suggestion is wrong, because for most of our history they consensus was exactly the opposite as it is here.  This is an argument to authority you have out forward.  It is not valid.

Nor is it disingenuous what I've said.  There's nothing disingenuous about it.  Its called strict constructionism, not disingenuous.

We have a Congress to consider policy implications, the Court is there to preserve the Constitution and the rights of the Citizens.  Let me rephrase what I said to Bono.  My rights are not subject to Pareto efficiency.