Kelo — One Year Later discusses “Legislative Responses to Kelo v. City of New London and Subsequent Court Decisions” (for libertarian views on the controversial Kelo decision, see here). As this LexisNexis piece notes, although the Supreme Court in Kelo broadened the definition of “public use” for purposes of the federal standards on state takings, the court also
expressly invited the state courts and legislatures to discern local public needs and, if necessary, implement a stricter definition of “public use” than what it had announced as the “federal baseline.” … In response, many states have accepted the Court’s invitation to impose stricter definitions of “public use” on their local governments’ eminent domain power by either proposing or enacting statutory reform measures and constitutional amendments.
Thus, although many libertarians went nuts after the Kelo decision–most on the false assumption that the federal court’s decisions are sole source for protecting our rights–the varied state and federal responses to Kelo, discussed in this study, belie that assumption.
{ 3 comments }
Here in Florida, we will be voting on a state Constitutional Amendment, which would forbid transferring property taken by eminent domain, to a person or private entity, except by a special act of the legislature, which would require a three fifths vote of both houses. Several counties and cities have already taken action and this amendment should seal the deal permanantly.
Stephan,
The objection to the Kelo decision is not that the federal courts should be the ultimate arbiter of rights. The objection to the Kelo decision is that it is a judicial interpretation of “public use” that is made up out of whole cloth. The decision also invites states and municipalities with similarly worded constitutions to engage in massive social engineering. The popular reaction to the Kelo decision simply underscores what a horrible piece of law it is.
My objection to the entire Kelo decision is that the language in the Constitution is simple and leaves no room. Public use is just that, public use as different from private use. There is no public good or benefit in the clause. JUST USE.
The judges chose to ignore simple language for the usual crap involved in public benefit. Or worse is that they have so little respect for private property that they will allow it to be take for any reason.
Comments on this entry are closed.