Charles Pillsbury III

Geek. Dad. Writer?

Charles Pillsbury III header image 2

Kelo Day and Eminent Domain (From Chad Perrin)

with 4 comments

Chad has a very good piece on the Kelo vs New London case and the atrocious Supreme Court ruling on it. Read and spread the meme please.

Instead, the wholly inexcusable explanation is that the Supreme Court simply decided that the fact the private developer’s resort would generate tax revenues, create new jobs, and contribute to a substantive “improvement” of the community in some way was sufficient “public use” to satisfy the eminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment. This, despite the fact that the qualitative “public use” consisted of nothing more than selling the property to a private developer. This is all founded, at least partially, on an 1832 Supreme Court decision indicating that “public use” meant “public benefit”, and not solely “public occupation” of land. Personally, I think the Supreme Court Justices in 1832 might have been confused about what the word “use” means.

[From Chad Perrin: SOB ยป Kelo Day and Eminent Domain]

Share/Save/Bookmark

Written by

June 18th, 2008 at 4:40 am

Posted in Misc

4 Responses to 'Kelo Day and Eminent Domain (From Chad Perrin)'

Subscribe to comments with RSS

  1. Once again, vernacular has changed. You would not have likely called someone a “user” in 1832, even in legal jargon. But now there are multiple acceptable “users” – drug users, product users (most commonly tech), etc.

    I don’t think the court of 1832 could have imagined local government profiting privately from the rape and pillage of already privately held land. If somebody came to tear my house down to put in condos they’d have a second amendment issue on their hands, not a fifth.

    Kyle Kinnaman

    18 Jun 08 at 9:41 am

  2. Do you see any Public Purpose defined, by this Court, as to what will ever satisfy it?

    JMB

    18 Jun 08 at 2:42 pm

  3. Kyle, I think what Chad is saying is that the amendment provides for “public use” and not “public benefit”, which was what the 1832 judgement seemed to change to. Public benefit being more broad in scope than public use.

    JMB (welcome to the site), I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re asking, can you clarify your question a bit?

    cpillsbury

    18 Jun 08 at 5:31 pm

  4. quoth Charles:

    Kyle, I think what Chad is saying is that the amendment provides for ‘public use’ and not ‘public benefit’, which was what the 1832 judgement seemed to change to. Public benefit being more broad in scope than public use.

    Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. I can certainly understand Kyle’s point, though — and his reaction.

    apotheon

    18 Jun 08 at 6:38 pm

Leave a Reply