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.
>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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.