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
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Thus began an epic battle for one man's vote-not to mention the crowning of America's most famous plumber. Both candidates purported to know what was best for Joe, what he believed, and how his business would best operate.
As McCain drew Obama into a debate about tax hikes on people earning more than $250,000 a year, the Democratic nominee raised the name of Warren Buffett as someone who could afford to pay extra taxes.
"We're talking about Joe the Plumber," insisted McCain.
But McCain took the routine too far; what started out as a nice human touch in a complex economic debate soon ended up as a punchline. In the media room, where the nation's political reporters were watching the debate, the fifth reference to Joe the Plumber elicited giggles. The tenth prompted guffaws.
When he weaned himself away from Joe, some of McCain's most passionate lines involved the kind of hurt and anger that he feels about the kind of campaign his opponent is running.
Obama attacked McCain once again for voting for President Bush's budgets even as he campaigns against wasteful spending. "Senator Obama," McCain said turning to his rival, "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."
That Reaganesque volley hung in the air for a few minutes, until Obama struck back. "The fact of the matter is if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies," Obama said, "it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people-on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities - you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush."
Discuss