Another step toward socialism

(This is a two-pronged post: liberal conceit; and the meaning of words)


The Kelo v. City of New London decision by our Supreme Court (after linking, it's R-69) last week takes an audacious (and frighteningly large) step in what seems like a relentless march toward government control of every aspect of our lives. (Except, of course, in a mother's choice over the life or death of her child before it escapes her uterus.) But I digress.

The "takings clause" in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment states "..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

When the court decided that it could award ownership of a parcel of land to a developer that it decided had a "better plan" for it's use (greater public benefit, presumably), it cited the 1954 case of Berman v. Parker, a landmark case involving redevelopment of a slum in Washington, D.C. The city's action took an unblighted department store in the area from it's private owner, as part of it's area-wide plan for a "better balanced, more attractive community". According to them. Do results matter? May we at least learn from them?

I wonder how the area is doing now? I tried to find info on locating the neighborhood in question, but failed. I'm willing to bet money that it's an area that has returned to slum.
Footnotes in the majority opinion that Justice Stevens wrote state that public use could "encompass the purpose of developing that area to create conditions that would prevent a reversion to blight in the future."(pg 14) I wonder if it has reverted to blight...
What I'm getting at is this: the liberal mindset that IT knows better than we do. The misguided and foolhardy ignorance about human nature and how the real world functions.
These passages from the footnotes reveal the naivete: "It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums." "In this way it was hoped that the cycle of decay of the area could be controlled and the birth of future slums prevented".(pg 14) That is, they believe the underlying cause of slums is real estate. Brick and mortar. Streets and buildings. Not people.

Courtesy of The American Heritage Dictionary: SOCIALISM: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

In the long-running judicial version of the telephone game, Expansive View has resulted in the mutation of common terms and ideas into whatever the current bench wants them to mean.
Justice Stevens puts it this way: "while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed 'use by the public' as the proper definition of public use, [my, what a quaint and parochial view!] that narrow view steadily eroded over time". (emphasis added) [pg 8]
See? The Telephone Game. Except, the words don't change, just their meaning.
As part of the justification for this trend, Stevens cites "the diverse and always evolving needs of society" as acceptable grounds for embracing "the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose' ". [pgs 8 and 9] Who says it's more natural?!

"...diverse and always evolving..." Sounds an awful lot like "living, breathing document", eh?

As Rush Limbaugh says: "Words mean things".

Justices' Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer also seem to have difficulty with the word "promote". They're not alone, though. [ I've said for years that there seems to be a kind of constitutional dyslexia that has plagued liberals for decades, confusing "provide" with "promote". As in: "provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare". They would rather we use more diplomacy against our enemies and engage in dialogue, thinking it will promote peace as a defense. Conversely, they want the government to provide welfare for more people. And not just the general welfare, but individual.] But I digress.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function," contends the majority opinion (pg 2, para C). However, the actions by the City of New London extend beyond promotion. They took the property in question, and then decided who to award it to. That's not promoting. It's stealing. And not even for public use!

I tell ya: this crowd will never change. We've been fighting their efforts to twist words, and redefine meanings since biblical times. Next thing ya know, they'll be asking what the meaning of the word "is" is.....

Brad

07-11-05 addendum: John Fund has a good column on this in Opinion Journal online, regarding historic abuse of Takings Clause to target "minority communities". Disappointing, however is MLK III's quote: "...eminent domain should only be used for true public projects, not to take from one private owner to give to another wealthier private owner." It doesn't matter if A is wealthier than B, or visa versa.