Posted by
john on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:48:34 PM
For those still deluded enough to believe that the Dems are "looking out for the little guy", I submit as Exhibit "A" contra, the infamous Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). This ought to have been an eye-opener, but alas it's not a perfect world, and you better watch out for those dastardly Republicans who will (a) starve your kids; (b) kill your grandma; and (c) sick the Monopoly man on you.
For those interested in a little 5th Amendment glimpse into our brave new road to serfdom, there's now a book out detailing the trials of one Susette Kelo, entitled "Little Pink House", reviewed in yesterday's WSJ. For those unfamiliar with the tale, it is the saga of Ms. Kelo, a forty year-old, divorced EMT; the house she bought in 1997 in a blue-collar Connecticut neighborhood; a giant corporation (PFE ticker symbol), a grasping city council, and five liberal Supreme Court justices.
It seems that when Pfizer came a courtin' the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), whispering sweet nothings in its ear about a new plant in an older neighborhood adjacent to a recently closed naval facility, the NLDC swooned. But what to do? You can't make people abandon their homes just because you've cooked up a lovely development scheme that promises to fill the city coffers. Or can you?
The Fifth Amendment reads in pertinent part: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Thus, until Kelo, the Fifth Amendment takings clause had been understood, not unreasonably, to mean that a taking of private property may occur if (a) just compensation is paid; and (b) the taking was for use by the public. Such "uses" included all those things you would imagine - parks, highways, bridges, and the like.
Since Kelo, however, and thanks the five most "liberal" (Orwell alert) Supreme Court justices then sitting, "public use" now means "public benefit". What's a public benefit? Whatever City Hall says it is. As the dissenting opinions pointed out, this interpretation obliterated "for public use" from the text. It also made clear, for any who might care to see, that the liberal establishment is only too happy to crawl into bed with the biggest businesses and crush "the little guy" like a little bug if there's a fat commission involved.
The happy ending isn't, sadly, that Ms. Kelo kept her house. But neither was it demolished, as were the other holdout homes in her area. Ms. Kelo's was dismantled and re-assembled in another part of town, complete with commemorative plaque - can you just imagine the very same local political thugs who ran her out preening for the photo-op? No, the happy ending is that since Kelo, 43 states have enacted legislation clarifying that "public use" means "for use by the public". Who do you think opposed this legislation? On the other hand, when a similar law came up for vote in Congress, it was defeated. Who do you think defeated it? Getting the idea? Here's your news flash: your grandfather's Democrat party is dead and buried.