Report a Comment

Eh, all the hubbub about Kelo showed a real misunderstanding of exactly what the SCOUTS ruled on. The facts and principles of the case really aren't all that controversial - the essential ruling was that economic development can be construed as having a public purpose under certain conditions, and this therefore is not inherently an unjust taking.

Furthermore, the Court specifically noted that these guidelines represent the broadest limit, and individual states (where the power of eminent domain actually lies) are free to take a more restrictive stance - in fact, many states already had such laws on the books.

The case essentially held up the status quo in terms of law. The political and populist backlash was more of a negative reaction to the circumstances of eminent domain than the actual law or principles therein.

by Alex B. on May 31, 2009 4:31 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam