Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] An article cheering the Supremes
  • Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:52:25 EDT

Gene writes:

> Move on.

If you like. But email lists are for discussion, are they not? If every
topic is met with a quick 'move on', what's the point of discussing it to
begin
with?

Here's at least one aspect of it that hasn't yet been addressed: The SC
decision in Kelo does not enhance the individual's rights any, not one bit.
People have always had the right to limit the authority of local governments
with
respect to eninent domain, as many have. Your explaination that Kelo is a
good thing in that directs local governments to decide the definition of
'public
use' for themselves is a bit empty in that locals have always had the
prerogative to restrict those powers of local governments. The point would
be well
made if there were a decision being handed down from the ffeds that *forced*
local governments to accept a liberal definition of 'public use' and the SC
then
decided that this had to be left up to the local goverment to decide. But
that's not the case. Viewed from the point of interest of the individual
property owner, Kelo does not enhance their position in any way whatever. It
is a
one-sided loss.

So while you might laud the notion of local governments having the power to
limit the definiton 'public use', Kelo does nothing to further that. Locals
have always had the power to do that.

Yes, there have been numerous eminent domain abuses. Those who keep up with
such things have been expecting for years that a case would finally reach the
SC and the very conservative definition of 'public use' would be clarified.
All sorts of violations of individual rights existed for years before they
were
finally quashed by the SC.

Kelo added absolutely nothing to the individual's rights that wasn't already
there but at the same time removed the single largest deterrent to abuse. It
is wholy a bad thing and is of use only to someone planning on abusing those
least able to fight them.

>No, the feds need to enforce that. As citizens we are free to move about
>the country from state to state, from community to community.

That's fine for those of the 'vagabond upon the earth' view of things but
some of us have deep cultural and family ties to one place. Displacing us
from
there is far more agregious than failing to support our right to free speech
or
freedom of religion.


Gene, you made your explaination, true enough. But unless it is to be taken
as an inviolate fiat, excuse me for pointing out that there are flaws in the
logic. That's what comes to chosing to be too few of words rather than
perhaps
too complete of presentation.


James






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page