Stevens perpetuated a fraud, instead of adhering to our Constitution.
Here is what he stated:
"…while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.”
As I previously pointed out, the irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. Justice Stevens took it upon himself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the he brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounted to judicial tyranny!
Yes, but you said HE changed the meaning. That is not correct.
It will take another court to overturn the presedent that Stevens upheld.
Even then, that would be the wrong decision. It should be up to each state to define public good/public use. Along with the federal government having a definition when they use eminent domain.
What I originally wrote was “the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. Justice Stevens took it upon himself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the he brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounted to judicial tyranny!”
Then I said I agreed with the ruling. Then you said HE changed the definition. I pointed out he didn’t. You disagreed you said that. I showed you he did, then you went on a rampage about how he didn’t change presedent.
The Presedent is what should be in place. let the individual states choose the definition that best fits what they need, and still is within the constitution. That’s what the presendent does.
And the constitution sets up the supreme court as the arbitor when disputes about the constitution arrise. Just like you and I disagree over the meaning of what can be taken under eminent domain here. You disagree with it, I agree with it. The court agree’s with me.
Kelo was one of the most odious decisions of the court in my lifetime and this legacy will be enduring.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision against Kelo and her neighbors sparked a nation-wide backlash against eminent domain abuse, leading eight state supreme courts and 43 state legislatures to strengthen protections for property rights. Moreover, Kelo educated the public about eminent domain abuse, and polls consistently show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Kelo and support efforts to change the law to better protect home and small business owners. Moreover, since the Kelo ruling in June 2005, citizen activists have defeated 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private development.
Meanwhile, in New London, the Fort Trumbull project has been a dismal failure. After spending close to $80 million in taxpayer money, there has been no new construction whatsoever and the neighborhood is now a barren field. In 2009, Pfizer, the lynchpin of the disastrous economic development plan, announced that it was leaving New London for good, just as its tax breaks are set to expire.
And when the court ignores the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, it has crossed the line and is engaging in judicial tyranny.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
It is absolutely discussing that the town used government force to take someone’s property, which they then transferred to a privately owned profit making enterprise. No one’s property is safe when government sponsored theft like this is allowed to take place. Our Founders were very careful when they wrote “public use” as opposed to public benefit or public purpose. And yet, the Court intentionally and willingly ignored our Constitution, and Stevens was a part of this judicial tyranny.
