Private Homes may be taken for public good

Gil Hamilton gil_hamilton at hotmail.com
Fri Jun 24 04:22:16 PDT 2005


>From: "A.Melon" <juicy at melontraffickers.com>

>The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property
>to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes.  This is
>but another variation.
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=229

Interesting that the author of that opinion was O'Connor, who authored the 
*dissent* from this week's opinion.  Apparently, taking property from one 
private individual and giving it to another is fine with her if the one 
you're taking it from is a member of an (evil by definition) "oligopoly".

O'Connor's dissent in the recent case is full of hair-splitting about why 
this transfer isn't for public use while the other one was, but all of her 
arguments would have and should have applied to the earlier case as well.

There is a special place in Hell reserved for people like her who open the 
proverbial barn door and then proceed to complain when the whole herd 
stampedes through. The key word is "principles": O'Connor should find some 
and try applying them consistently.

GH

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list