Are a research and development center of a pharmaceutical co./waterfront hotel the same kinds of things as a state park or an interstate?
A. No
My reaction to the New London, Conn decision was absolute disgust. During my property class we watched a documentary on the Poletown decision that was handed down in the eighties. In that case a bunch of elderly men and women were forced to give up there home to make way for a greenery that was supposed to surround a new parking lot of the new GM (I believe) factory. These people work working class folk who only knew that they owned a little piece of the earth and had no concept of "eminent domain", but they didn't go down without a fight. They banded together in a real community and protested and the day the wrecking balls came they all huddled up in a Catholic Church (the church sold out to the developer months prior). However, it was all for naught. The families lost their homes and were only compensated at the assessed fair market value of their home. Guess how much a home that is going to be greenery for a new parking lot at a GM factory is worth? Ya, not much.
With my limited background in the foundations of our democracy, one thing I am always reminded of is that property and more importantly, the rights of the citizenry to truly own the property is one of the foundations of a democracy. Further, the first thing (well, maybe second) thing a despot will do is eliminate property rights and claim them it all as his own. This way he limits the power of the public and thereby the threats to his despotism.
While I agree that eminent domain is needed and just when the domain is to be used for actual public use, I do disagree that our democracy has degraded to such a point already that the public has been replaced by private organizations or businesses. The Supreme Court has moved our "democracy" from a probable timocracy to an aristocracy with this unwise decision IMHO. It seems in the present state of the question a person could be robbed of his right to possess certain land at the whim of a local official.
Public use of non-blighted land cannot and should not mean parking lots for private businesses or summer homes for wealthy campaign contributors.
For the reasons above I respectfully dissent (Wow, that is fun to say! Now I know how Scalia feels all the time.) from Kelo v. City of New London.
My reaction to the New London, Conn decision was absolute disgust. During my property class we watched a documentary on the Poletown decision that was handed down in the eighties. In that case a bunch of elderly men and women were forced to give up there home to make way for a greenery that was supposed to surround a new parking lot of the new GM (I believe) factory. These people work working class folk who only knew that they owned a little piece of the earth and had no concept of "eminent domain", but they didn't go down without a fight. They banded together in a real community and protested and the day the wrecking balls came they all huddled up in a Catholic Church (the church sold out to the developer months prior). However, it was all for naught. The families lost their homes and were only compensated at the assessed fair market value of their home. Guess how much a home that is going to be greenery for a new parking lot at a GM factory is worth? Ya, not much.
With my limited background in the foundations of our democracy, one thing I am always reminded of is that property and more importantly, the rights of the citizenry to truly own the property is one of the foundations of a democracy. Further, the first thing (well, maybe second) thing a despot will do is eliminate property rights and claim them it all as his own. This way he limits the power of the public and thereby the threats to his despotism.
While I agree that eminent domain is needed and just when the domain is to be used for actual public use, I do disagree that our democracy has degraded to such a point already that the public has been replaced by private organizations or businesses. The Supreme Court has moved our "democracy" from a probable timocracy to an aristocracy with this unwise decision IMHO. It seems in the present state of the question a person could be robbed of his right to possess certain land at the whim of a local official.
Public use of non-blighted land cannot and should not mean parking lots for private businesses or summer homes for wealthy campaign contributors.
For the reasons above I respectfully dissent (Wow, that is fun to say! Now I know how Scalia feels all the time.) from Kelo v. City of New London.
5 Comments:
I join in the dissent.
Next thought. I heard on the radio today some guy going on about how "Roe" could never be overturned because it is "well-settled" law! He said it would take a constitutional amendment to change the law. Think about that for a moment. The High Court cannot overturn its own decision but Congress effectively could? Nonsense. Am I wrong. Wasn't "Roe" a plurality? Not that it matters (or maybe it does). A different court could simply point out that its previous holding was based on faulty reasoning or out-dated medical knowledge, for example, and overturn its decision. It could hammer away at the differing bases leading to the same conclusion (i.e., no majority). It has before, hasn't it? Am I wrong or was the guy on the radio a nitwit?
Also, Jon. Your "Top 300" list is ambitious and so far looks very good!
As my father is a person who has the ability to spout off about such things on the radio I would be skeptical of anything and everything that is said (unless it's Rush, Ditto? j/k).
Plessy v. Ferguson laid forth the racial doctrine of seperate, but equal. This case was decided by the SC with only one Justice dissenting. This doctrine was reversed with Brown v. Board of Education. One of many examples of the Supreme Court correcting itself and it has the constitutional power to do so.
Regarding abortion however, the host was probably talking about how it would be difficult to get a Majority of Justices to overturn the decision because it seems to be an equitible decision. No advancement in science is going to replace a woman's right to keep the government out of her body. However, the constitutional amendment would have to be crafted so as to give the fetus rights equal to those of the mother (which does carry some serious medical and ethical dillima issues). If this were done and abortion were revisited it would have to be sorted out in light of the new amendment to the constitutuion which would probably allow for a reversal of the decision.
Now, please realize that I'm just talking off the fly here because I haven't had a proper Conlaw class; so apologies if in a semester this stuff was complete bullarky(sp).
It's just a top 100 not 300. I'm not that ambitious and I have to be sure and get it done before school or I'll never get it done. Thanks for the encouragement.
I wrote a paper on abortion in Human Sexuality the last year of under-grad. The conclusion that I came to was that abortion is sinful but that the government has the right to sanction it if it wishes.
I also remember a conversation Jon and I had about abortion and how it would raise a lot of other problems to give a fetus equal rights--for example, you would be required to report miscarriages, and there is also the problem of excessive control over a pregnant woman's diet and lifestyle.
Oh yeah, but calling Roe "well-settled law" is a misnomer, and probably a phrasing of self-serving propaganda. Like when a tort claimant's attorney calls his client a "victim."
Doesn't "Well settled law" simply mean "old precedent"?
But isn't giving a fetus equal rights the only way to get around the "woman's right"? Nothing will happen with abortion and probably with good reason. I think we Christians should poor more money into helping women make the proper choice rather than paying a lobbyist and funding numerous non profits trying to change a judicial opinion. Making abortion illegal (I think there's a good argument that this should be an issue for the states under the constitution) will not solve the problem of abortions, but will only make the situation worse by creating unsafe and illegal abortions.
As a side issue to all this.
What about high school counsellors providing direction towards and in one case I heard of, paying for abortions without and around the parents consent. I don't see how a minor can be expected or even allowed to make this decision without a parents decision or a court order. I mean, we won't let these kids have a beer, but we're going to let them make a decision that will effect them (most likely negatively) for the rest of their life. Besides, don't children belong to their parents until their 18 or emancipated?
dilemma (my spelling sucks)
Post a Comment
<< Home