Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Supreme Court - "takings" tempest in a teapot
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:01:03 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu> Date: June 24, 2005 8:35:10 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] more on Supreme Court - "takings" tempest in a teapot Reply-To: eackerma () u washington edu Greetings Dave, I thought I'd try and shed a bit of light on the recent Supreme Court"takings" case Kelo v. City of New London, because the press, especially the AP article forwarded to IP earlier, has been hyping it in a way that doesn't
show the whole picture.The Kelo decision was important for municipal and real estate lawyers, BUT it is NOT the HUGE deal, or even a big deal, the press has been making it.
The Constitution's 5th amendment, among other things, says governments can only take private property for "public use," AND ONLY IF the property holder
is "justly compensated."http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.billofrights.html#amend
mentvThe press seemed to be noting the compensation in the footnotes, if at all. So earlier posts notwithstanding, govt. takings ARE constitutional, in fact they are written right into the constitution. They just have to be for a
"public use" and "justly compensated." In Kelo, the Supreme Court just confirmed that in some cases, municipaleconomic development plans that involve condemning private property for new
development (REMEMBER, with JUST COMPENSATION) are "public use," even if part of property ends up in private hands at the end of the deal. There are, and the Supreme Court reaffirmed, strong prohibitions on just transferring private property from one private owner to another using condemnation. The classic taking situation is when a govt. condemns part of someone'sproperty to make a clearly PUBLIC use such as expanding a road or building a
city park. BUT takings can also be regulatory - when a governmenteffectively removes all value from a piece of land by restricting what can
be done with it, an "absolutely no development" wetlands environmental restriction, for example. The idea of "regulatory takings" is a lynchpin issue for strong property rights advocates and has been a MAJOR tool used to challenge most environmental protection by several Republican administrations - I would suggest this explains why the "conservative" vs. "liberal" breakdown of votes occurred. Finally, as Nathan identified, you can argue that takings implicatecopyrighted property as well, it was a major argument made by some in the
copyright extension cases, including Eldred v. Ashcroft.Two good editorials that give takings a quick, easy explanation, including
political context: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0221-26.htm (LA Times) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/cyber/epstein.html (WSJ) -Ethan Ackerman -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com]On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:09 AM To: Ip ip Subject: [IP] more on Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes Begin forwarded message: From: Jon Urdan <jonu () preventsys com> Date: June 24, 2005 12:18:55 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] more on Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes No one has commented on the odd alignment of judges in this case. [...] Does this seem odd to anyone else? [...] Begin forwarded message: From: Nathan COCHRANE <NCOCHRANE () theage com au> Date: June 23, 2005 8:02:25 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: RE: [IP] Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes Hi Dave The news out of the US gets weirder and weirder all the time. So much for the US Constitution when might makes right. [...] But it could be an interesting angle on the copyright debate. [...] ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Supreme Court - "takings" tempest in a teapot David Farber (Jun 24)