Party of property rights?
In February, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Kelo v. New London. This is an important property rights case that will hopefully restore the public use clause of the fifth amendment. That clause has been bastardized and public use has somehow been interpreted as the public good, which means a government can take your land and give it to someone else to increase tax revenue. Clint Bolick writes that the Bush administration is seriously considering filing a brief opposing property rights:
Ordinarily, an administration weighs in on other people’s cases only where a direct federal government interest is presented. Here, no such interest exists, because the federal government typically uses eminent domain only for public use.
So what is it that is impelling the administration to betray its principles?
Is it succumbing to pressure from federal bureaucrats born of solidarity with state and local power? Is it seeking to shelter big business interests that are beneficiaries of eminent domain abuse?
We can’t know because no one in the administration is saying. Even worse is the brazen disdain with which the administration has dismissed pleas from some of its staunchest allies to stay out of the case.
It is a bit questionable that no information is known as to why the administration would support such a thing but, given the big government Republican government we have, I wouldn’t find it surprising.
December 22nd, 2004 at 2:58 pm
Consider that when W was a board member and part owner of a ball team, they used eminent domain to grab property to build a stadium. So why should he oppose other big businesses misusing eminent domain for their own gain?
If you think “conservative” and “Republican” should mean respect for property rights and desire for smaller government, the Bushies are liberal-lite and Democrat-lite.