<p>So, driver, how do you apply the Constitution, “as written” to this issue?</p>
<p>So let’s read what it says:</p>
<p>First there’s the 5th Amendment:</p>
<p>“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”</p>
<p>So that’s pretty clear: private property CAN be taken for public use.</p>
<p>Then there’s the 10th amendment:</p>
<p>“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”</p>
<p>More than a hundred years of judicial history have held that states and the legislative branch can make decisions as to what constitutes “public use”, and that the courts should butt out. The Findlaw annotation is useful:</p>
<p>Public Use </p>
<p>Explicit in the just compensation clause is the requirement that the taking of private property be for a public use; the Court has long accepted the principle that one is deprived of his property in violation of this guarantee if a State takes the property for any reason other than a public use. 173 The question whether a particular intended use is a public use is clearly a judicial one, 174 but the Court has always insisted on a high degree of judicial deference to the legislative determination. ‘‘The role of the judiciary in determining whether that power is being exercised for a public purpose is an extremely narrow one.’’ 175 When it is state action being challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment, there is the additional factor of the Court’s willingness to defer to the highest court of the State in resolving such an issue. 176 As early as 1908, the Court was obligated to admit that notwithstanding its retention of the power of judicial review, ‘‘no case is recalled where this Court has condemned as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment a taking upheld by the State court as a taking for public uses. . . .’’ 177 However, in a 1946 case involving federal eminent domain power, the Court cast considerable doubt upon the power of courts to review the issue of public use. ‘‘We think that it is the function of Congress to decide what type of taking is for a public use and that the agency authorized to do the taking may do so to the full extent of its statutory authority.’’ 178 There is some suggestion that ‘‘the scope of the judicial power to determine what is a ‘public use’’’ may be different as between Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment cases, with greater power in the latter type of cases than in the former, 179 but it may well be that the case simply stands for the necessity for great judicial restraint. 180 Once it is admitted or determined that the taking is for a public use and is within the granted authority, the necessity or expediency of the particular taking is exclusively in the legislature or the body to which the legislature has delegated the decision, and is not subject to judicial review. 181 </p>
<p>It would take a truly “activist” judge in the style of a Scalia to attribute this power to the federal bench.</p>
<p>And Garland, in response to “So anyone who lives in an area where someone wants to put up a more expensive home (which would generate higher property taxes) is at risk. There is no line at all.” The Supreme Court opinion actually addressed that very point (part IV of the opinion.) They specifically noted that they were not holding that generating higher property taxes would, in itself, be considered a “public use”, saying that that question was not presented in this case. So it may well be that the line would be crossed by such an action. Regarding the trailer parks - well, yeah, condemning property that is considered to be “economically blighted” for “redevelopment” was held to be a valid “public use” decades ago. Of course, one man’s blight is another man’s paradise, but perhaps that’s a determination best left to the local authorities…</p>
<p>Well, yeah. That horse left the barn a long time ago. I don’t see any Constitutional issue there. “Blighted” is usually cheap; eliminating “blight” usually results in the destruction of low cost (and generally low quality) housing.</p>
<p>I find the ruling disturbing.</p>
<p>In Iran today, the population voted for the candidate who is not interested in improving ties with the west and that is how the US government is going to look at the election result.</p>
<p>I’m looking at the election a little differently. In Iran, poor people can still elect candidates that represent them. In the US, that doesn’t happen anymore. Makes me wonder who has the democracy.</p>
<p>And Kluge, those people who now live in the cheap housing, should move…where?</p>
<p>Oh right, they don’t have much money…who cares.</p>
<p>Wow, so many ultra liberals finally disgusted by socialist thinking and actions.</p>
<p>Let me be clear - I find the POLICY distressing - as I find many thing undertaken by Demo-Republicans at the behest of the interests of the socialism of the rich. But not the ruling not at all. In fact, I’m a little surprised that they took the case at all, this being such a well-settled point of law. Only “activist” judges of the Scalia type, who want to throw out the 100 years of judicial “hands-off” policy which left the issues to the legislative realm, would have an interest in providing cert for such a case. </p>
<p>Well, they did. And now it is even more settled than before.</p>
<p>I’m not ultra-liberal.
Zagat, maybe you have read the following. In socialism, man exploits man.
In capitalism, the opposite is true.</p>
<p>Have a hard time seeing how ruling in favor of the corporate folk at the expense of the poor is socialism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhhm, it didn’t matter who they elected - the clerics run the country.</p>
<p>Help me understand that one Dstark.</p>
<p>Garland, in true socialism, of course you what do what the Court did. More people will benefit as opposed to the one or more land owners. Jobs, taxes, pretty basic. The good of the community. socialism.</p>
<p>Maize&Blue22, in this country, we don’t even pretend to elect anybody that represents the poor.
By the way, how sure are you that the poor don’t want a religious country run by clerics?</p>
<p>Help me here again Dstark. If the wealthy are less than 1% of Americans, and we can all vote, why are the poor not represented?</p>
<p>Because neither major party represents them (they don’t make very big contributions–go figure.)</p>
<p>The candidates that are offered represent the well to do and it doesn’t matter which party they come from. It takes too much money to get elected. The choices offered to the public are Republican candidates supported by the rich and Democratic candidates supported by the rich.</p>
<p>Then it’s time to end private donations. Couldn’t agree more. If I never have to see another paid for political commercial…Still, nothing will change.</p>
<p>Zagat, didn’t expect you to agree. 
No, nothing will change.</p>
<p>Do you think if we really had a democratic system, we would have had tax cuts where the top 1% of the taxpayers received $76,000? This is more than the average family makes. Something tells me those tax cuts would not have been enacted and the money saved would have been used for social security or health care in a real democracy.</p>
<p>Yes, if you understand the economics, I would have. What I can’t understand is the millionaire only tax. We are discouraging people from accumulatiing wealth.</p>
<p>Funny thing here, this one is just so much closer to home for so many. It’s not the rich and a millionaire’s tax. It’s you and me. We could have inherited a beachfront home or been smart enough to buy one in a yet to be desireable place.</p>
<p>Had we had the money to buy in Malibu or Beverley Hills, no matter, no corporation would soil thir CEOs home by building next door. But who ever thought waterfront New London would pay off? And those poor suckers will settle for current value while the rich in Malibu and Santa Barbara will make millions more over the decades. Go figure.</p>