Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
certain specific rights should not, and cannot, be left up to states OR the local governments. Again, issues will arise where a minority will have their rights removed, unconstitutionally, for the benefit of a majority. This kelo decision is one of them. I watched a very similar issue right here in arlington texas last year where the city 'condemned' several properties, holdouts that wouldn't accept a lower than 'just compensation', yet their RIGHTS were infringed because of a majority desire to have a better tax base by having a new cowboys stadium and parking lot built in their city.
The constitution applies to us all, not just states and federal. It applies to the local governments every bit as much as it does the others. It is a HUGE FAILURE on every judiciary level when basic rights are infringed or written off as 'for the better of society'. Is it acceptable that a minority be gagged of their free speech because it is better in society if they are? Is it acceptable that christians be prohibited from freely exercising their religion because they work for the government? Is it acceptable for the right to keep and bear arms be infringed because of the heinous actions of a few? Is it acceptable that the privacy rights of those accused of crimes be infringed because they are accused of crimes? Is it acceptable to deny a human being their right to representation in the courts because they were designated a meaningless title?
This is the kind of crap that I ranted about in my very first paragraph of this thread, that people easily accept that the rights of others are infringed because it either doesn't affect them directly, it benefits society as a whole, or those particular individuals were 'bad people' and therefore didn't deserve them. As my signature implies, are destruction will come from within because a majority of society is either apathetic or weak.