Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wuli

Agreed.

Even under the corrupt reading of the Constitution provided by the Kelo decision, the notion that there is a 'public purpose' to letting one developer rather than another provide the same increase in tax revenues is absurd.

Giving the SCOTUS the chance to revisit Kelo in an issue where the use of eminent domain is completely indefensible seems like a very good idea.


29 posted on 10/18/2005 8:02:43 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: The_Reader_David

The real problem is stare decisis - "it is decided", the judicial concept of respect for precedent.

The Kelo decision did not orginate from a vacumn. The unanimous, SCOTUS 1954 Berman v Parker decision opened up the "use" language of eminent domain to "purpose", for the expressed purpose of a Washington D.C. urban renewal project in a depressed slum area. Although that decision specified a restriction to urban renewal in a depressed area, the concept that SCOTUS could arbitrarily modify the term "use", on its own had been given a precedent on which the later Kelo decision was built.

In Kelo, "use" having arrived as already modified as "purpose" was further modified to "benefit", with benefit no more than a public proclamation of the politicians who chose to apply eminent domain to their politically determined purpose.

Liberals call this process the "living constitution" when in fact it is nothing other than the slow, deliberate process by which our Constitution, the Constitution of "we the people", is slowly eroded without our consent, without recourse and replaced with a Constiution dicated by SCOTUS.

It is for this reason that SCOTUS decisions and SCOTUS appointments have become so political, because the locus of our "constitutional rights" has been moved from the public, electoral, political process of amending the Constitution to a dictatorial power in SCOTUS.

Liberals neither trust nor accept the political process to advance their goals. In fact, the law-making history of liberals since the New Deal has been to keep moving policy decisions out of the democratically elected bodies and institutionalize liberal rule-making mandates into unelected regulatory bodies - courts and appointed regulatory agencies.


37 posted on 10/18/2005 10:28:00 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson