by Jason Lauritzen

A year ago, the City of New London, Connecticut, was rocked by a liberal Supreme Court decision. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the court ruled that the city could seize private property to sell to private developers. The city argued the land could be used to create jobs and surprise, generate tax revenue. The property owners rightly argued that the confiscation of private property violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which says that government can only take property for "public use."

The majority opinion of the court stretched the definition of "public use" to "public purpose" further widening the number of excuses government could manifest to confiscate property. The dissent in the case had to give the majority a basic lesson on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: "These two limitations serve to protect 'the security of Property,' which Alexander Hamilton described to the Philadelphia Convention as one of the 'great objects of Government.' Together they ensure stable property ownership by providing safeguards against excessive, unpredictable, or unfair use of the government's eminent domain power--particularly against those owners who, for whatever reasons, may be unable to protect themselves in the political process against the majority's will."

Editorial Note: It should come as no surprise that President Bush just published an Executive Order on eminent domain in order to make it appear that Republicans are tough on the issue. It's obviously just election year politics, as Bush has personally benefitted from corporate eminent domain abuse.