(Untitled)

[dangerzooey]

Am I the only liberal intellectual who thinks that the decision in Kelo v. New London was clearly the right decision? I'd love to hear some arguments that explain how this ought to be a constitutional protection.

I <3 Breyer and Souter.

[Edit: P.S. Given all this wiretapping crap and the acquisition of websurfing records from many primary

Comments

[dangerzooey]

What does that comment even mean? Can you give me something resembling good reasons?

[dangerzooey]

I'm not asking about what is the moral thing to do in this situation. Clearly you don't use this power often, if you use it at all. My issue is wherein in the constitution is there anything that says that this is a protection by the federal government...that it is impossible for there to be sufficient grounds for a community to decide in their own best interest? It seems that this is clearly a state issue, if not even a community issue. It seems to me that a community having such a need is possible and thus that acting on this need ought not be outlawed by the Supreme Court.

[dangerzooey]

Frankly, she's wrong. If you read the majority opinion, there was a thorough detailed plan for economic improvement, and there was an explicit provision in that state's constitution allowing just such an action.

This decision is about states rights vs. federal rights and nothing more.