Imminent Domination

In case you haven't heard, on Thursday the Supreme Court handed down a horrific 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London that officially allows the government to seize private property for private economic development, all in the name of "public use".

The Fifth Amendment clearly states that private property "shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation." And so it is no controversy that the government could, for example, take your home in Vernonburg in exchange for its market value and build part of the Truman Parkway in its place, or build a military base. While this is unfortunate, it is lawful and a necessary evil. But that's not what is at issue here.

In Kelo, the court gave city governments the green light to seize property for third party interests (in this case, it was a shopping mall that was proposed), all in the name of economic "revitalization." In other words, if Kroger wants to build a store on your land, even if you don't want to sell, too bad. Chatham County officials could force your out home and sell it to Kroger. Why? Because the Kroger would bring in more tax dollars than you as a homeowner does.

Thursday was a big win for big government. Ever thirsty for more and more tax revenue (which is now part of the "public benefit"), city and county officials will stop at nothing to expand the tax base. Governments may take private property and give it to anyone they like, and all they have to do is say that this serves some public purpose.

Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch defender of liberty, property rights, and the Constitution in general (and whose birthplace is 10 minutes from where I am typing this very post), wrote the most eloquent dissent:

Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

Right on Clarence.

The very foundation of civilization is private property, and with this decision, no one's property is safe. Russell Kirk, the father of modern conservatism, wrote in the 1950s that

Freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth.

The last traces of the founder's intentions to limit the government's eminent domain power have been erased. I know it sounds bad, but I really can't wait for a few these left-wingers on the bench to hurry up and die so Bush can finally appoint some constructionists to go in and reverse the disasterous course this and previous courts have embarked upon.