Quote:
Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I disagree with the result in the recent eminent domain case, but didn't the decision state that if states didn't like the result, they were free to legislate around it? There's talk of changing the laws in Texas to prevent a similar situation.
Damn liberal federalist judges.
|
Federalism shouldn't be anyone's beef in analyzing
Kelo:
"For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power." p 12-13.
"To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development." p 13.
“'When the legislature’s purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our casesmake clear that empirical debates over the wisdom oftakings—no less than debates over the wisdom of other kinds of socioeconomic legislation—are not to be carried out in the federal courts.'”
Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242.20" p. 17
"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose 'public use' requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domainstatutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised." p. 19
"This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a 'public use' within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution." p. 19
I personally don't think that the proposed condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but abandonment of federalism couldn't possibly be argued in this decision.
