Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),
What does redistributive mean. Well, remember that it was the liberal Left-Wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that brought us this little jewel, holding that the government could take your real property, like your home, not for public use like a road or school, but to give to another private individual, such as a political contributor or other party hack or interest group.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer
The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Mad Man
McCain attacked all night-hurting himself more than Obama.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
In case anyone was wondering what tone John McCain would take in the final presidential debate, the answer came with his first response.
"Americans are hurting right now, and they're angry," he said. "They're hurting and they're angry," he repeated. "They're innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street as well as Washington DC. And they're angry and they have every reason to be angry."
Four mentions of anger in the first two minutes. And McCain was barely warmed up.
Anger was a crucial facet of the last debate of the 2008 campaign, held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The Republican nominee attacked his opponent relentlessly over the course of the evening, and Obama, seemingly determined to try to rise above and not take any risks that could imperil his lead in the race, spent much of his time responding to the charges-rather than mounting assaults of his own. Throw more punches than the other guy, and you're likely to land more blows. But McCain is trapped in a vicious cycle; trailing in the polls, his campaign is following conventional campaign wisdom by going negative. But the more he attacks, the surveys suggest, the higher his personal negatives tend to go. The instant post-debate polls, while not the most reliable soundings known to man, seemed to confirm the problem: The principle victim of McCain's sustained onslaught has been…John McCain.
McCain didn't just need a game-changing moment at the debate; the Arizona senator, known in Washington for his sharp temper, needed a character-changing moment.
To his credit, he hit on a smart, folksy vehicle for conveying his wrath. After Obama made a sales pitch for his own plan to help homeowners, moderator Bob Schieffer asked if McCain wanted to ask Obama a question.
"No," said the Republican nominee. "I would like to mention that a couple days ago, Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who's a plumber. His name is Joe Wurzelbacher."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next Page »
Discuss