The States, Kelo, and Emminent Domain

Scott Bullock, the laywer at the Intitute of Justice lawyer who argued the Kelo case before the Supreme Court, writes that in the year since the decision, states have acted vigorously to reverse the implications of Kelo:

When I got the call from the Supreme Court clerk's office telling me that the court had decided Kelo v. New London -- and that the city had won -- I and my colleagues who had worked on this case from the trial court up to the Supreme Court sat together in stunned silence. ...

What a difference a year makes.

Kelo is the most universally despised Supreme Court decision in decades. And it touched off a nearly unprecedented, grass-roots backlash against eminent domain abuse -- where land is taken, not for a traditional public use like a road or a public building, but from poorer folks and given to wealthier folks, all in the name of "development."  ...

So far the results have been encouraging. Legislatures in 25 states have responded to public outcry by restricting eminent domain in a variety of ways. Three other states passed similar legislation, only to have it vetoed by the governor. Six states -- Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire and South Carolina -- have constitutional amendments to reform eminent domain that will go before voters this fall.

This is a nice illustration of federalism: states adopting reasonable policies so long as the federal government does not make this impossible.

Comments

[Mike Huben]

This is a nice illustration of states limiting use of their own legitimate powers in response to their citizenry. Something few libertarians will credit, instead referring to "grasping hand" rhetoric.

[James]

Mike,

If you've set up a cron job to make snide comments here, maybe you could include a feature that actually disagrees with something in the original post.

[Chris]

...legitimate powers, Mike?

From where? How is self-given authority legitimate?

[Mike Huben]

James, this is the COMMENTS section. I don't see you disagreeing with Miron: why are you posting here?

Chris: look up legitimate.

[Chris]

LEGITIMATE:

1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth
2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false
3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right
4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards

So a government's "legitimate" powers are whatever they put into law? What makes the law a source of power or authority?

[Mike Huben]

Try harder, Chris. I didn't say look it up in a dictionary: that's never a place for political philosophy.

Wikipedia is an OK start for you.

[James]

Huben,

"I don't see you disagreeing with Miron:..."

So what? (Hint: Did I suggest that all comments should contradict Miron?)

"...why are you posting here?"

the purpose of my post above was to point out your tendency to point out how knee-jerk your statist emotions are. Even when you can't find any point of substantive disagreement with what a libertarian has said, you just post some snide remark.

[Mike Huben]

James, your problem is that you're not very subtle.

Miron frames this as "reasonable policy". I reframed to show that government was limiting its own powers, a key idea of liberalism, and counter to rational choice theory.

As for your characterization of "knee jerk", I think you're still projecting.