Justice Souter's home has come under attack in recent days (again) from Eminent Domain activists, who disagree with the majority ruling in last year's Kelo decision. They have placed a proposition on the local ballot to effect a taking of Justice Souter's home to build a "lost liberty hotel."
Takings by the government for a public purpose is legal, under the Fifth Amendment. The ruling in Kelo determined that the taking of private land as part of a major renovation project to improve the economy of a city, create new jobs, increase tax base and employment for the town constituted a legitimate government purpose. The detractors dislike that the ruling appears to give carte blanche to wealthy corporations who might like a certain spit of land in a neighborhood. I don't see the slope as quite that slippery, myself. I don't like takings; I actually think that people who buy their land should be allowed to own their land, but I can certainly see the need for the local government to care for the entire city, even at the sacrifice of a half-dozen families.
To that end, I think the activists are wrong. I don't think they fully appreciate what the ruling means or intends, and I think that they believe that they are doing "right" to teach Justice Souter a lesson, but they are not operating within the spirit or ruling of the decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment