Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beth
I think it would have been best to go through the state level.
|
That's essentially what a majority of the Court held in
Kelo. They said that not only was the Court not in the best position to evaluate what local municipalities determined to be "public use," but also that states, not the federal government, have the power to determine their own eminent domain regulations:
We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 2668 (2005).
I've never quite understood the outrage over
Kelo, especially from so-called conservatives.