Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Sunday, February 25, 2007 12:40:05 AM
The Denver Post has published an editorial that is breathtaking in its embrace of bad policy. It praises Kelo as "wise." It is easy to overlook the bad outcomes that can occur when a major paper endorses an obviously unconstitutional ruling by five lawless justices:
Events since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo ruling underscore the wisdom of the 5-4 decision that allowed states and local communities to determine what constitutes a "public use" in eminent domain proceedings.
I had to laugh at the Denver Post' next construction of Constitutional Law:
Many Americans cringe at the notion of a city condemning Grandma's cottage to expand Wal-Mart's parking lot. But although the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation," it doesn't define "public use." Rather than pretend that an anti-Wal-Mart clause exists in some mysterious "penumbra," the court turned to 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Anyone who thinks this issue through will quickly realize that this is the very argument that can be used against Roe v Wade. Lets try out the Post's on argument with just a small substitution of words: Rather than pretend that [a right to privacy] exists in some mysterious "penumbra," the court turned to 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
But there is more. While the Post's words support overturning Roe, they don't really apply to Kelo. One doesn't have to look farther than the Bill of Rights to find some not so mysterious wording prohibiting takings for non public purposes.