Supreme court OKs personal property seizures

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Government can seize property for commercial use under the "eminent domain" clause.

In ages past, the "eminent domain" clause has been used to seize property for public use – such as roads or schools. However, there is a big difference between "Public Use" and "Public Benefit". This ruling makes the two terms synonymous. The dissent, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, was particularly stinging.

In plain English, this means that the local government can raze your house if they think that they can get more "public" income (i.e., taxes) by putting a Wal-Mart there.

This is very disturbing indeed.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: