Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision on New London because they judged that imminent domain it rightly a state issue, not a federal one. The result of that decision caused many states, mine included, to correct or alter their laws to prevent the same situation from occuring in that state.
Had the Supreme Court intervened and reversed the state decision, we would likely have seen subsequent challenges based upon that precident. I would liken the outcome as the same bastardization that we see in the interstate commerce clause.
I agree that what happened to New London truly sucked, but the positive outcome is that states' rights have been maintained and their laws have been cleaned up to prevent this in the future.
|
some disagreements on my part here.
First, the constitution (I believe) was written to state/declare/protect the rights of all individuals, and not just from federal intrusion. The seperate states of the colonies agreed and ratified the constitution. The tenth amendment also specifically states that those powers not enumerated to the feds, belong to the states or the people respectively.
Now, because of a ruling in the early 1800's that declared that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government, the congress then passed the 14th amendment. Because of THIS amendment, now all the states SHOULD also be bound to the bill of rights, however, this doesn't happen because we have justices seated around the courts that apply their politics in their decisions instead of ruling on the constitution.
Second, The USSC ruling majority in Kelo is anti-constitutional because the constitution protects property rights, but does allow private property to be taken for 'public use' with just compensation. Because of a new york state court decision in the early 1900s, 'public benefit' got wrapped up in that definition. This basically allowed for the majority to remove the rights of a minority based upon nothing more than a benefit to society instead of a use by society. There is a huge difference between a public school, a private railroad that society uses, and a private corporation that provides a tax revenue increase.
Third, states laws have not been corrected to prevent localities from taking private property. All that the states have been able to do BECAUSE of the USSC ruling is to deny state monies to localities that take private property and give it to developers for 'revitalization'.
again, eminent domain has become nothing more than the majority denying private property rights to individuals based on an economic outcome. Anyone remember something about how a republic is dead when people realize that they can vote themselves the money of other people? Thats what this is.