The High Court

The Supreme Court is truly mad. Bush better take full advantage of the appointments he has coming up. Here's the latest usurption of the constitution: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes


Justice O'Conner writes the dissent where she begins by making the following point:

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

It's a shame that Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens don't understand that the right to own private property is one of the most important principals this country was founded on. Freedom and Liberty mean little if a person can't find security in his or her own property.

The case is KELO v. NEW LONDON, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011