Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
using the 'blight' aspect of a council power is strictly based on the eminent domain principle. by simply saying that it's a local law, therefore a local issue is tantamount to saying that the constitution doesn't apply in new london. It's not any different than denver, Colorados ban on carrying a handgun. They are basically stating that the state constitution does not apply to them.
Either the US constitution is the supreme law of the land or it is not. I fail to see how any logical and rational person could remotely suggest otherwise.
|
Then I don't think that you understand the decision - the Court said that this is a local issue best decided by local officials. As Elphaba pointed out, this is a states rights victory since it hands responsibility for these kind of decisions back to the state and local governments. The thought is that local governments knkow how best to serve the local population. The majority said that the Constitution does indeed exist in New London but that it does not necessarily apply. It is up to the states to reign in any local government abusing eminent domain, not the federal goverment.
This case is in all aspects a local issue strictly confined to New London, CT, and the court specifically stated that states can impose restrictions on localities for this. I don't see how a logical and rational person can see this as anything but the court handing the ability to govern back to local government and telling them to solve their own problems.