Kelo v. New London

[© tweed]

He've had a thread on this before but never a poll.

http://www.justia.us/us/545/04-108/case.html

[Emsworth]

Unsound decision. Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, private property may only be taken for "public use," that is to say, use by the public. Simply transferring land from one private person to another is unconstitutional, even if just compensation is provided.

[muon2]

Unsound decision. Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, private property may only be taken for "public use," that is to say, use by the public. Simply transferring land from one private person to another is unconstitutional, even if just compensation is provided.

Then your beef is with Berman v. Parker, not Kelo. I agree that Kelo goes too far in its grant of authority. However, like the principal dissent in the Kelo case, I feel that the narrow definition of public use for economic development in Berman should have remained the basis for the decision in Kelo.

[Emsworth]

Then your beef is with Berman v. Parker, not Kelo. I agree that Kelo goes too far in its grant of authority. However, like the principal dissent in the Kelo case, I feel that the narrow definition of public use for economic development in Berman should have remained the basis for the decision in Kelo.

As Justice Thomas points out in his dissent, the Constitution provides that private property may only be taken for a "public use," not, as Berman asserted, for the "public interest." As the New York Court of Appeals said in Bloodgood v. The Mohawk and Hudson Railroad Co. (1837), "When we depart from the natural import of the term 'public use,' and substitute for the simple idea of a public possession and occupation, that of public utility, public interest, common benefit, general advantage or convenience ... we are afloat without any certain principle to guide us."

[Speed of Sound]

Not only is is unsound, it is one of the worst decisions ever.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just hope the city of New London really suffers for this due to their name being in the ruling.

[muon2]

Then your beef is with Berman v. Parker, not Kelo. I agree that Kelo goes too far in its grant of authority. However, like the principal dissent in the Kelo case, I feel that the narrow definition of public use for economic development in Berman should have remained the basis for the decision in Kelo.

As Justice Thomas points out in his dissent, the Constitution provides that private property may only be taken for a "public use," not, as Berman asserted, for the "public interest." As the New York Court of Appeals said in Bloodgood v. The Mohawk and Hudson Railroad Co. (1837), "When we depart from the natural import of the term 'public use,' and substitute for the simple idea of a public possession and occupation, that of public utility, public interest, common benefit, general advantage or convenience ... we are afloat without any certain principle to guide us."

I understand that you agree with the dissent of Thomas, while I agree with the dissent of O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Scalia (signed as well by Thomas). If you indeed agree with Thomas, then I stand on my statement. I recognize as Thomas does, that the problem you cite is with the 1954 Berman decision, not Kelo.

I find this paragraph from the main dissent more compelling than Thomas' (not signed by the other dissenters).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MaC]

Not only is is unsound, it is one of the worst decisions ever.

One thing I'll agree with you on.

BTW, anyone hear anything lately about the group to "Emminent Domain" Souter's house?  I thought that idea had died down, but read something on an AOL article today..

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bad decision, but there are other rulings that are far more important.

[Jake]

Bad decision

Activist right wing judges!!!!

[Joe Republic]

BTW, anyone hear anything lately about the group to "Emminent Domain" Souter's house?  I thought that idea had died down, but read something on an AOL article today..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1529693

[Emsworth]

BTW, anyone hear anything lately about the group to "Emminent Domain" Souter's house?  I thought that idea had died down, but read something on an AOL article today..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1529693

I personally find this "protest" very silly. Justice Souter never said that he personally supported using eminent domain for economic development. He merely concluded that the Constitution did not forbid using eminent domain in this way.

Protesting in this way is akin to arguing that a Justice who made a pro-slavery ruling (before the Thirteenth Amendment) deserved to be enslaved himself.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There is a movement around the country to pass state constitutional amendments to in effect nullify the Supreme Court's absurd decision in Kelo.

[muon2]

There is a movement around the country to pass state constitutional amendments to in effect nullify the Supreme Court's absurd decision in Kelo.

State legislatures don't need state constitutional amendments to nullify the effect. The decision made clear that state law could restrict municipalities, and the decision only applied when there was a lack of state law providing restrictions. Many states (like IL) already had such laws, and Kelo had little effect. It should be much easier to pass state laws than to amend state constitutions.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There is a movement around the country to pass state constitutional amendments to in effect nullify the Supreme Court's absurd decision in Kelo.

State legislatures don't need state constitutional amendments to nullify the effect. The decision made clear that state law could restrict municipalities, and the decision only applied when there was a lack of state law providing restrictions. Many states (like IL) already had such laws, and Kelo had little effect. It should be much easier to pass state laws than to amend state constitutions.

Presuming an honest judiciary, yes, your are correct.

However, state constitutional amendments are being sought because there is a widespread recognition that some state judges have been known to twist state constitutional provisions all out of shape to overrule states the judges don't like.

Look what happened recently in Maryland where a judicial tyrant imposed her own views on the state.

[A18]

It's not nearly the disaster that most people make it out to be. All the states have to do is pass laws outlawing this kind of activity, and that'll be the end of it.

Better yet, each state can amend its constitution.

[Q]

Protesting in this way is akin to arguing that a Justice who made a pro-slavery ruling (before the Thirteenth Amendment) deserved to be enslaved himself.

Other than being hypocritical, I would have supported such a plan.