Breyer: Any seizure of private property could benefit public
Comments by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer during oral arguments in the landmark Supreme Court property-rights case appear to support Justice Clarence Thomas' assertion that the ruling essentially has erased a key clause from the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
The 5-4 decision Thursday allows a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's will for the purpose of private development.
The debate centered on the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads, schools and urban renewal. But officials in New London, Conn., argued that private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even though the area was not blighted.
In his addition to the dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote: "If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution."
No comments:
Post a Comment