« YES! Albert joining Nets | Main | The transit fare mess »
February 28, 2005
Post-Kelo commentary examines past decisions
Observers of last week's oral arguments in Kelo v. New London were left wondering if the US Supreme Court would kick this controversy back down to the state legislatures. A quick scan of opinion columns and blogs shows that the Supreme Court has not only done this before, but they pratically opened the door for local eminent domain abuse.
Most columnists call for the Supreme Court to find a reasonable way to untangle this mess brought to you by past court decisions ("Berman v. Parker" and "Midkiff"), except for the Washington Post, which posits that the primary principle of Fifth Ammendment takings clause is the requirement for "just compensation."
Washington Post, Editorial: Taking New London
The Boston Globe, Jacoby: Will court curb eminent domain?
The Gainsville Times: Should government take private land to bring in money?
The Sun Herald (South Mississippi): The public 'use' and private wrongs of eminent domain
MensNewsDaily.com ("righty"): Condemning Private Property Rights
morons.org ("lefty"): Working-class New London, Connecticut residents are challenging the city's attempt to seize their homes and transfer them to a private developer...
Quote of the day (a.k.a. The Problem with "Parker"):
"Property of course may be taken for redevelopment which, standing by itself, is innocuous and unoffending. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment stands in the way."
-- Justice William O. Douglas
Posted by lumi at February 28, 2005 7:44 AM