Paul Finkelman wrote:
Resing this one would think the City of New London simply took people's home awafrom them; not that they dity had a well developed plan of urban renewal that included compensation -- probably greater than "just" compensation for what is essentially a public works project. This a relatively narrow decision that is teid closely to the facts of hte case. it is conssitent with takings law going back to the 18th and 19th century; it is not much different than the laws allowed eminent domain to be used t build railroad or for profit canals and ralroads, which after all, were owned by stockholders. It is not unreasonable to see industrial parks as something like railroads in our economy today. They provide jobs for people across the board the way a railroad did transportation; they stimulate the economy the way railroads did; this sort of development is consistent with much of our history.
I wasn't expecting a liberal to defend these absurd giveaways to corporations. Even if the railroad giveaways weren't driven by corruption (and many were), the power caused by giving so much land to the railroad companies made them economic powerhouses that allowed them to run roughshod over farmers across the Midwest and West. By incentivizing the westward expansion, these actions accelerated the confrontation and despoilation of the Indians. Quite a number of the environmental problems of the Western U.S. are at least partially because of the rapid expansion made possible by the combination of railroads and railroad exploitation of their land ownership. I'm sure that this fascist interference with the free market made some people wealthier than they otherwise might have been--
but looking at the total results are hardly something of which to be proud.
It is charming to think of Justice Kennedy as a "liberal." hard to imagine where that idea comes from. It is also sort of humorous to see the term "liberal" tossed about like
Let's see: how did Kennedy rule on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, and Raich? In those two cases, along with this one, he ruled on the side of those who believe that there are few limits to governmental power to control, and that explicit guarantees of individual rights can be weaseled a round in the interests of governmental power. On Lawrence, he suddenly decided that local representative government could NOT be trusted--but in this case, based on a reading of the Constitution which requires special glasses and falsification of history.
McCarthy tossed about "communist" to describe any justice that you disagree with. This decsion may be Holmesean, in that it defers to local government (something I thought Joe Olson and others liked). But it is hard to think of Holmes as a liberal. He invented the "clear and present danger doctrine" to suppress free speech, supported sterilization,
Kennedy and the other liberals who voted with him don't believe in deferring to local government when it comes to sodomy laws--and unlike the Fifth Amendment's protection of private property rights, which are explicit, Lawrence was decided on a rather bizarre reading of the due process clause. There is nothing principled about this. It is purely a matter of the majority deciding what they WISHED the legislature to have done, and substituting their judgment about what is rational.
and supported segregation. Jumping from this case to discussing people being "enslaved" means that you have no clue about what slavery was -- and you forget that the most protective decision for property in America was Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said the constitution protects the rights of master to take their slaves wherever they want because slaves were protected property.
You don't think being drafted and then assigned to work in a private company wouldn't qualify as slavery? Dred Scott is another example of what happens when judges substitute their desires for following the law--and as the dissent makes clear, like Lawrence, ignoring inconvenient history along the way.
Whether the decision of the government in New London is wise or foolish might be a matter for debate. Just as we might disagree about whether the city of Comptonn California should have kept Walmart out of the city. But there are local political decisions. I find it ironic that law professors and others who are big on fedrealism and states' rights, and fearful of "big government" are unhappy with this decision. This is after all, a decision that allows the state to experiment with what it is needed to stimulate economic development at the local level, while at the same time fully compensating the proeprty owner for the property taken for public use.
If there were no constitutional provisions protecting private property owners, I would agree. But unlike Lawrence, there is a specific constitutional provision that requires no stretching to address this issue.
Instead of reading your own propaganda about this case and repeating heated rhetoric that is only marginally on point, it might be good to actually look at the facts of the case and what was decided.
I did. I understand why there is an enthusiasm among liberals for this sort of power. If the government can transfer private property at will to another owner, then all sorts of wonderful things can be done in the public interest. In practice, it means that corrupt politicians get to use eminent domain to turn private homes over to casinos, Wal-Mart, or whatever other fat cat of the moment has enough money to buy off the city council.
To bring this back to the subject of this list: gun control advocates for a very long time insisted that the state governments had authority to regulate concealed carrying of firearms: complete bans; discriminatory licensing; whatever. Now this has turned around to bite them, as legislatures have written non-discretionary concealed weapon permit laws--and gun control advocates have argued in places like Ohio, New Mexico, and Missouri that the state legislature has NO authority to write such laws. The enthusiasm for unlimited governmental control can turn around and bite you.
Clayton E. Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
