I think you badly misstate the facts of the case. What the Supreme Court did was uphold the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, which was the one which said that the New London could use eminent domain to acquire private property for whatever they defined as the public good. And isn't that what you are advocating? That states should have the right to make their own decisions on how to run their own affairs free from restrictions placed on them by the federal government? Now we can dispute the wisdom of the lower court decision all we want, but you of all people should be cheering on the Kelo decision. The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to step in and impose a solution on the people of one of the sovereign states, and they refused. They allowed Connecticut the freedom to run their own show, for better or worse. And isn't that what you are advocating?
I don’t necessarily like the reasoning (the 14th Amendment has a problematic history and is a ‘Pandora’s box’ of Constitutional havoc), I do think the correct decision was made.
In other words, a tyrannical and overbearing government in DC told Illinois and the city of Chicago what they could or could not do. Again, we can argue the underlying merits of the case but at the end of the day a state went their own way and decided that they wanted to place restrictions on gun ownership. And the federal government in the form of the Supreme Court said that they couldn't do it. A solution was imposed on them by D.C. How can you support that?
:-)
Considering the complexities of these two cases, and attempting to draw direct relation to the issues we’ve formerly discussed here is — creative. Pray, tell me, WHICH of these two scenarios do you think were decided correctly — or were either?
I think in arguing these issues between two primary entities (in a judicial setting) — State v. Federal — one misses the MAIN focus of “liberty” or “rights.” The individual. The individual is not a pawn of the State, or the the Federal Government. Yet the Judicial system — Government itself — has come to regard the individual as just a cog in the machine.
Tell me, how does the “individual” figure into your scenario? Into your views of these two cases? Who are the BEST guardians of the rights and liberties of the individual?
Something to chew on, given the two cases your presented...