Replies

Sam: This has been going on since at least the late 1800's. There was a Supreme Court ruling back then that allowed the railroads to not only build the trans-continental railroad, but other needed rail lines. But it seemed there were some pesky land owners who didn't want to sell to the railroad and had the where with all to push back. Those folks couldn't be intimadated by the RR's dirty tricks and other efforts to get them to get off the land so legal action was initiated. The Supremes held the RR's could go forward and take the land by eminent domain.

Now while the RR's can move public goods, including troops and other military goods, they still are private entities. Part of the deal was the RR's had to make available those lines for others to use (of course for a fee). Maybe that was the beginning of the regulation of the RRs and other transportation. I'm not sure.

Virtually every conservative will laud what happened then and how crucial it was to the development of the United States and it's push toward opening the western frontier.

But what was so different to those property holders then vs the property holders now. Why do we laud the linking of the west via the Railroads as vital and necessary when in fact if we hold to the same rhetoric we hear today, it was a terrible travesty, because the property of one private individual was transferred to a corporation.

I'm actually this hasn't gotten larger play in the MSM, but a similar thing happened in Arlington, TX with regard to the Texas Rangers. The stadium was built by the use of eminent domain. And a young businessman by the name of George Bush was heavily involved in that. A quasi public corp was used to allow the process to take place when in fact, a commercial enterprise was able to flourish because of it. Try to enter that park in January when there is no chance of a game being played and see how public of a place it really is.

Perhaps the founders intent was more toward compensation and public good rather than concern over who owns what.

Talk radio has been funny over the past few days. There have been calls by hosts and callers that corporations have gotten too powerful and that we've got to stop the flow of money to our elected officials so this can be properly addressed at the various local levels. Funny how just a few months ago that action was deemed a first amendment right. Some Christian talk radio host are going as far as to say that this is an effort to be able to take out the churches at will. Funny how some churches have been able to grow and add space using the same criteria that a young businessman in Arlington, Tx did. Now if the court simply made it official, then how is it probably anti-church?

Well I'm not thrilled to hear that the Supreme court of Victorian times made the same mistake. I'm still devastated and shaken that our court ruled as it did this week. Add to that last year's ruling on CFR and last month's ruling on medicinal marijuana and interstate commerce. I figure it's only even money whether the court would uphold any of the Constitution at this point. Justice Steven's language really throws me for a loop. He references "public interest" and "careful planning." The similarity of that to the words "common good" and "central planning" aren't a coincidence IMO.

My son is home for a long weekend from law school. He pretty much takes the same view of this as you do, and, since he's actively studying this stuff, can quote case history all the way back to the founding. We were discussing the thing last night over a couple beers. Apparently as early as 1814 Congress was using the Interstate Commerce clause to step outside its constitutional bounds. Hell, I think most of the founding fathers were still alive then.

I know all this now, but I still feel like I'm suddenly living in a different country than the one I grew up in and lived in for so many years. Maybe I was living in a dream, but I'm still sad.