When does the phrase " public use " mean " public purpose "? When the Supreme Court says so. The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision to seize private property in New London, Conn. for the purpose of commercial development demonstrates a clear judicial activism that violates the 5th Amendment. This was not for " public use " but for " public purpose " which is a subjective classification that can in the future be twisted into any legally- pretzeled decision a court would want. It sets adrift another protection of individuals from governments intrusive powers. The states still have preeminence in their respective eminent domain statutes but what pandering -politician will not now be offering special interests this new windfall of legal larcency.
How far could it go ? Look at history. The U.N. in 1947 voted to partition historic Palestine to the purpose of creating Israel. How did the U.N. get the power of eminent domain? The so-called democratic process of the U.N. turned into a kleptocracy of bought votes and political trading.
Like the U.N. our Supeme Court has gotten into illegal and unethical areas. Both organizations should be cropped of powers or risk being considered non-relevant and unfunded.
No comments:
Post a Comment