United States v. KELO

By  | 

About a month ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of broadening eminent domain rules to include condemning private land for the “public good.” We wrote about KELO at that time.

Now we’re hearing that liberals and conservatives are coming together to fight this very questionable decision on eminent domain:

In Washington, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said his office received more calls from constituents angry about this case than it did for the Supreme Court ruling that limited displays of the Ten Commandments on public property. Cornyn is proposing a bill to bar cities and counties from using federal funds for economic development projects that involve seized property.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a liberal who rarely supports Republican bills, has signed onto two GOP bills and proposed two of her own. “The people who get hurt are the many poor people and working people who don’t think they can fight City Hall,” she said.

Found at USA Today.

UPDATE: Aug 5, 8:57 a.m.
Lawyers, Guns and Money has a different view of the case and a valid point. Take a look at what those who agree with the KELO decision are saying. LGM also points to Nathan Newman, who reveals what the city of New London actually wanted the land for: a coast guard museum. Ridiculous.

RETRACTION: Aug 5, 3:28 p.m.
I was incorrect is saying that the ruling had a “broadening” effect on eminent domain laws. Cities and towns have used eminent domain for years to condemn land so they can use it for the “public good”. The Supreme Court merely affirmed that the actions in KELO v. New London was constitutional under the 5th Amendment.