It seems clear that with the Kelo decision, action must be taken to preserve private property rights from crooked politicians and State governments. The new definition of eminent domain, as recently established by the Left side of the Supreme Court means that anyone, rich or poor, can be kicked out of their home so the property may be acquired by WalMart.
"Now that they've got carte blanche to do whatever they want, they will," said Dick Saha, 75, who in May won a six-year fight to keep Coatesville, Pa., from seizing his farm.
"We have four horses. My two daughters have some land we gave them and the grandkids come down and ride the horses," Saha said. The town, he said, "decided they needed our property for a golf course."
Eminent Domain used to mean that government could only acquire private land for a public works project like a road or a dam. Now "public works" has been redefined to include shopping malls and golf courses.
Eminent Domain used to mean that your home could be acquired only by the "public"; now it means your land could be confiscated to be given to someone else.
And not even a "poor" someone else; no a filthy rich someone else. A land developer or a corporation.
wealthy investors and city leaders had been given the power to run people from their homes to make way for new development. The line between public and private property has been blurred, [Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor said in her dissent, and no home is safe.
The Government in the US is supposed to exist to protect private property not take it away and give it to high tax-paying enterprises owned by wealthy developers at the expense of some old person paying lower taxes on less "valuable" property.
Since it is clear that the Supreme Court can not be trusted with correctly interpreting the Fifth Amendment, the next political campaign should be about Amending the Constitution to precisely say that Government can not abrogate the private property rights of citizens by taking their property and giving it to other citizens in a for-profit venture.
Is that too much to ask?
Failing that, or perhaps in addition to that, each State should amend their Constitutions with similar words. As of now, only two State's Constitutions have such words. However, since the Supreme Court has essentially interpreted the US Constitution this way, those State's Constitutions are in legal limbo with regards to this matter.
This is what happens when you lose respect for private property rights; rights which have been under assault by the Left for decades.
It's time we defend something that is quintessentially American: Private property.
And the time is now.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." - Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Is that how you want it? Is that what you think is right?
Is it?
Update: Eugene Volokh points out that Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has introduced legislation that is intended to clarify the 5th Amendment for the Supreme Court. And everyone else.
But we need to go further....
