Eminent Domain bullshit

[Triple_Z]

Amendment X is not really applicable in this case. Per Amendment V, the concept of eminent domain is legalized. Thus it is a power which the federal gov't may hold sway over. The concept of federal powers vs. state powers isn't really applicable here because the Supreme Court is not ruling on the balance of powers, but instead is ruling on the constitutionality of the seizure of property. The right for (or against) the seizure of property is guaranteed to individuals via the Bill of Rights. Laws affecting these guaranteed rights, whether they be federal, state, or local, are thus analyzed for their constitutionality and are struck down or upheld depending upon the opinion of the Court.

The Court has had this ability since John Marshall's reign in the early 1800s. I can't remember the case at this point; it did have something to do with the presidential appointment of constables right before Jefferson assumed office. I think it was Marbury v. Madison, but I might be wrong.

As to the BOR being rights of individuals vs. rights limiting government, they are really the same thing. Individuals are granted said inalienable rights to inhibit government's encroachment on people's personal lives. So it sounds like Jim and Keith are really in agreement with each other...

Finally, in personal reference to Jim, I was not trying to kill the messenger per se, only argue against the strict constructionist statement (of which I consider myself one). My recollection of the living document concept was that a living document is updated with the times. Thus as political opinions, religious notions, etc., change, the document is updated by legislatures & judges to reflect that change or societal shift. A strict constructionist viewpoint tends to view laws in the letter in which they were written. Unfortunately, with the wording in the Constitution regarding the concept of eminent domain, judges are essentially forced to assume the living document method. The statement of public good or for the public use has no clear definition, and thus will change itself over time, molding itself to society's opinions. Other laws, such as the right to bear arms, are more easily argued from a strict constructionist point of view.

I apologize off the bat if I get a bit heavy into this. I live in a cornfield where people don't generally debate political and economic subjects, so I consider this an outlet. Although I may disagree with some of you, I appreciate your opinions as they force me to think of a response.

[jim schmidt]

I meant that blaming the court was "kill the messenger." Not that I thought I was the messenger.

That said, the issue was not Eminent Domain as you have noted. It was whether the Feds can regulate the local's right to define it. In other words, can the Federal Government tell a state or local government that their definition of the circumstances under which they may excercise Eminent Domain is incorrect. They were not granted this right explicitly in the Constitution so it does default to Amendment X, I think.

BTW, a Strict Constructionist view also ignores records of legislative intent and legislative history. If it were an intellectually honest viewpoint, it would also have to disinclude "signing statements." Since it ignores legislative intent, it also reasonably follows that it ignores changes in science, technology, or civilization that were unforseen by the Founders. It would be interesting if its advocates would explain it in light of, say, Brown V Board of Education. However I think this would point directly to its failure as a theory.

And I too appreciate both your candor and your civility. I don't seem to find it all that common among people who disagree with me.