southchild

Finally, in a coda, the Court suggests that property owners should turn to the States, who may or may not choose to impose appropriate limits on economic development takings. Ante, at 19. This is an abdication of our responsibility. States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty, but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution (and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them.

Well said, Justice O’Connor. And with that, the Supreme Court has legalized theft (read the full decision here), so let’s all get busy forming our Redevelopment councils so that we can steal our neighbors property. Other commentaries on this extraordinarily bad decision:

Paul Jacob weighs in on this Supreme Blunder.

Thomas Sowell writes on how this decision blatantly violates the separation of powers because, in one swift stroke, the Supreme Court illegitimately changed the law (i.e., legislated) while failing to do their legitimate job of protecting the Constitutional rights of individuals. Sowell writes:

When the Supreme Court majority referred to its “deference to legislative judgments” about the taking of property, it was as disingenuous as it was inconsistent. If Constitutional rights of individuals are to be waved aside because of “deference” to another branch of government, then the citizens may as well not have Constitutional rights.

The good news is people are fighting back. If ever there was a time to FAX your local, state, and federal representatives insisting that they pass legislation to prevent this eminent domain abomination, it is now.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 28th, 2005 at 2:08 pm and is filed under General, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.