06-23-2005, 10:00 PM
I don't think this decision was so much about "if the government wants to do this, they can", the issue seems to be where the jurisdiction lies. It's interesting to see that, once again, the more liberal justices seem to be coming down on the side of state's rights on this one. If this keeps up, we may have to redefine the characteristics of liberals and conservatives.
Looking at the fifth amendment, there does not appear to be a federal restriction on taking property as long as it's done with "due process" and the landowner is compensated. Both of those requirements seem to be satisfied in this situation, and Stevens indicates that there's a weath of case law that supports this.
It doesn't seem like any of the justices are thrilled with the proposed land seizure, but the ones who voted to allow the seizure seem to be saying that the decision shouldn't be under federal jurisdiction. If local people have a problem with the law, then they need to work to get the law changed at the local or state level- as a legislative matter rather than a judicial one.
While all of that sounds good on paper, the problem is that the people whose land is most likely to be seized are the people who are least likely to have the power to fight a proposed seizure or to affect legislative reform. That's why there are already so many industrial parks and other nasty things located in poor neighborhoods and not rich ones.
While I didn't read the decision (or the dissent), it sounds like the dissenters might have been more concerned with the equal protection clause (which *would* give the federal government jurisdiction over the states) than the fifth amendment. The interesting thing, to me, is that we don't usually have Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting in a 5-4 decision on the grounds of equal protection. :blink:
Looking at the fifth amendment, there does not appear to be a federal restriction on taking property as long as it's done with "due process" and the landowner is compensated. Both of those requirements seem to be satisfied in this situation, and Stevens indicates that there's a weath of case law that supports this.
It doesn't seem like any of the justices are thrilled with the proposed land seizure, but the ones who voted to allow the seizure seem to be saying that the decision shouldn't be under federal jurisdiction. If local people have a problem with the law, then they need to work to get the law changed at the local or state level- as a legislative matter rather than a judicial one.
While all of that sounds good on paper, the problem is that the people whose land is most likely to be seized are the people who are least likely to have the power to fight a proposed seizure or to affect legislative reform. That's why there are already so many industrial parks and other nasty things located in poor neighborhoods and not rich ones.
While I didn't read the decision (or the dissent), it sounds like the dissenters might have been more concerned with the equal protection clause (which *would* give the federal government jurisdiction over the states) than the fifth amendment. The interesting thing, to me, is that we don't usually have Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting in a 5-4 decision on the grounds of equal protection. :blink:
Why can't we all just get along
--Pete
--Pete