|
Quote of the Moment:
|
Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
— Ayn Rand |
|
|
XML / RSS Feeds: |
 
|
|
|
An Eminently Flawed Interpretation of Eminent Domain
Posted on Saturday 02 July @ 06:21:44
|
The most recent assault on individual rights by the Supreme Court stems from an eminent domain case in New London, Connecticut. Rather than confining government to its rather simple charter of protecting its citizenry from force or fraud, The Supremes have deemed it acceptable for government to seize an individual's property for "public use" whenever the government feels so compelled. This departure is a frightening setback for a host of reasons, chief among them is the rather Soviet-like expansion of the meaning of "public use." According to this revisionist opinion, government may expropriate any private property for the "public use" whenever such a seizure would bring "benefits to the community." Well, that's a relief, at least there's an objective, rational standard by which to measure this farcical behavior.
So, where have The Supremes left us? They have both re-framed and re-answered the question of when the government can evict a lawful citizen from his own property. What is the answer to that re-framed debate? Such citizens can be made homeless when they can be replaced by those that will, ostensibly at least, pay more taxes. (I leave it to the reader to decipher what political leanings make the payment of more taxes attractive to a government entity.) The principle problem with this rather peculiar reading of our Constitution is Amendment number Five in that little document known as The Bill of Rights.
Leaving aside the "just compensation" aspects of this debate for the moment, this humble author cannot seem to reconcile the rather alarming expansion of the "public use" standard of measurement against its original meaning. Our Constitutional Framers manifestly intended the adjective "public" to limit the government's power to steal or otherwise behave inappropriately. Only a socialist-leaning court could possibly construe the original meaning of "public use" (namely for the things used by the general public—such as bridges, roads, military bases, and the like) into yet another wealth redistribution scheme.
As Ayn Rand aptly put it, the smallest minority on earth is the individual. The Supreme Court, in its eminent wisdom, has corrupted a fundamental principle by foresaking the individual. Individual rights are sacrosanct—not subject to a public vote; an individual right that changes with a particular vote changes the very meaning of the term. While this decision was not supposed to be subject to a political vote, it's quite clear that it was likewise not subject to a careful scrutiny of individual rights.
So much for the protection of the minority and the rule of law...this is an abysmal ruling from our court of last resort.
That's my $0.02, and it's worth every penny!
-H.G. Lee
|
|
|
