Joseph E. Olson wrote:
The plaintiffs challenged this as violating the Fifth Amendment guarantee that private property would only be taken for public purposes.
Not quite. The distinction is between public "use" and public "purposes", and whether any public purpose, such as the one in this case, satisfies the standard in the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated by the 14th, of "use". This is a subtle but important distinction that has been drawn in several lower and state court decisions, that "use" is limited to more narrow purposes, such as highways, canals, dockyards, forts, etc., where the government continues to use the property for the benefit of the ;public, rather than immediately selling it to private parties. Enhancing tax revenues or property values might be a public "purpose" but is not a public "use". The plaintiffs used the word "use" not "purposes" in their pleadings. -- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------------- Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get your free digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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.
