Supreme Court ruled private property can be seized

[Sam Spade]

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution.   I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition.   So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional.  There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong.  The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

There are clear definitions of "public use", many that occur within standard dictionaries of the times of the founding and of common law practice of those times as well.  To say that the Supreme Court has defined "public use" per the Constitution because the meaning is vague or left open to interpretation is simply wrong.

Thomas goes on and on in his dissent about this and about the morphing of the Takings Clause and the "public use" doctrine in the last 100 years into the similar, yet disjunct term of "public purpose", which means something totally different in the context of property rights and eminent domain laws.

[muon2]

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution.   I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition.   So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional.  There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong.  The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

I generally agree with your statements, and do think there is a place for urban renewal - as has been permitted by the courts for 50 years. I do think that a more beneficial ruling wuld have been to recognize the need for clear state guidelines that curb the worst abuses.

I would have liked to see a ruling that held in part and reversed in part, striking those parts of the redevelopment plan that were vague in their benefit. That would still permit a deference to states and localities to define economic distress and plan accordingly. It also would better define the purpose part of public use so that states would have to have a rational set of standards before the eminent domain could be invoked.

[Emsworth]

\
It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution.   I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition.   So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional.  There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong.  The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

Your suggestion that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution is one that I completely accept and agree with. However, we do remain entitled to deem the Court has interpreted the Constitution incorrectly.

[The Duke]

Not permitting eminent domain creates all sorts of hold-out problems that impede progress.  If a government want to initiate a revitalization project in a blighted area of a city, they need to have the power to seize existing property at its correct value.  The current owners should be compensated for this value as well as all other associated expenses.  That is, they should be left no worse off than before the property was seized. 

If it were up to existing owners to sell their property at whatever price they could get from the city or the developers, this would give a huge advantage to whatever owners were the last to hold-out; they could extort an completely exorbitant price, and the city would have no choice but to pay it, because they've already purchased the surrounding property.  This in turn gives all the property owners a disintentive to ever sell, because they want to be the ones to hold out for an extortionary price.   

Urban renewal would be basically impossible with eminent domain.  Again, if you don't agree with a particular project, then vote against the officials who are advocating it.  But this is a question of political policy and not constitutionality.

No one is criticizing eminent domain, we are criticizing the Constitutionality of eminent domain to serve the interest of a preferred group of private citizens over another.

As I said before, even Justice Stevens admits that this is NOT a blighted area!

I guarantee you, this issue will be a litmus test for voters in New London for many years.  And I guarantee you that these people's homes will still be bulldozed and their ocean views still given to a pharmaceutical company.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition. So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional. There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong. The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

The proper way to get around such ambiguities is to discern the intent of the authors of a law.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would never have ruled that confiscation of property to give to a massive corporation in order to get more tax revenue is a "public use".

Your implication is that the Constitution should be mutated to serve whatever you think is beneficial to the public reeks of fascism, as it removes all effective limits on government power and makes all right of citizens subjective.

[David S]

Not permitting eminent domain creates all sorts of hold-out problems that impede progress.  If a government want to initiate a revitalization project in a blighted area of a city, they need to have the power to seize existing property at its correct value.  The current owners should be compensated for this value as well as all other associated expenses.  That is, they should be left no worse off than before the property was seized. 

If it were up to existing owners to sell their property at whatever price they could get from the city or the developers, this would give a huge advantage to whatever owners were the last to hold-out; they could extort an completely exorbitant price, and the city would have no choice but to pay it, because they've already purchased the surrounding property.  This in turn gives all the property owners a disintentive to ever sell, because they want to be the ones to hold out for an extortionary price.   

Urban renewal would be basically impossible with eminent domain.  Again, if you don't agree with a particular project, then vote against the officials who are advocating it.  But this is a question of political policy and not constitutionality.

No one is criticizing eminent domain, we are criticizing the Constitutionality of eminent domain to serve the interest of a preferred group of private citizens over another.

As I said before, even Justice Stevens admits that this is NOT a blighted area!

I guarantee you, this issue will be a litmus test for voters in New London for many years.  And I guarantee you that these people's homes will still be bulldozed and their ocean views still given to a pharmaceutical company.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition. So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional. There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong. The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

The proper way to get around such ambiguities is to discern the intent of the authors of a law.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would never have ruled that confiscation of property to give to a massive corporation in order to get more tax revenue is a "public use".

Your implication is that the Constitution should be mutated to serve whatever you think is beneficial to the public reeks of fascism, as it removes all effective limits on government power and makes all right of citizens subjective.

Nick is voicing one of the principles of Socialism and Communism, that individual rights can be sacrificed in the name of the common good. This is one of the reasons why I find them both so repugnant.

Some folks may argue that taking the individual rights of one person to benefit many is a good thing, but what they are missing is that individual rights do not apply to just one person they apply to everyone. When you take one persons rights you sacrifice everyone's rights. That is a very bad thing.

The court's decision not only slaughtered the rights of the New London residents it slaughtered the rights of every property owner in America.

[??????????]

Not permitting eminent domain creates all sorts of hold-out problems that impede progress.  If a government want to initiate a revitalization project in a blighted area of a city, they need to have the power to seize existing property at its correct value.  The current owners should be compensated for this value as well as all other associated expenses.  That is, they should be left no worse off than before the property was seized. 

If it were up to existing owners to sell their property at whatever price they could get from the city or the developers, this would give a huge advantage to whatever owners were the last to hold-out; they could extort an completely exorbitant price, and the city would have no choice but to pay it, because they've already purchased the surrounding property.  This in turn gives all the property owners a disintentive to ever sell, because they want to be the ones to hold out for an extortionary price.   

Urban renewal would be basically impossible with eminent domain.  Again, if you don't agree with a particular project, then vote against the officials who are advocating it.  But this is a question of political policy and not constitutionality.

No one is criticizing eminent domain, we are criticizing the Constitutionality of eminent domain to serve the interest of a preferred group of private citizens over another.

As I said before, even Justice Stevens admits that this is NOT a blighted area!

I guarantee you, this issue will be a litmus test for voters in New London for many years.  And I guarantee you that these people's homes will still be bulldozed and their ocean views still given to a pharmaceutical company.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition. So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional. There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong. The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

The proper way to get around such ambiguities is to discern the intent of the authors of a law.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would never have ruled that confiscation of property to give to a massive corporation in order to get more tax revenue is a "public use".

Your implication is that the Constitution should be mutated to serve whatever you think is beneficial to the public reeks of fascism, as it removes all effective limits on government power and makes all right of citizens subjective.

Nick is voicing one of the principles of Socialism and Communism, that individual rights can be sacrificed in the name of the common good. This is one of the reasons why I find them both so repugnant.

Some folks may argue that taking the individual rights of one person to benefit many is a good thing, but what they are missing is that individual rights do not apply to just one person they apply to everyone. When you take one persons rights you sacrifice everyone's rights. That is a very bad thing.

The court's decision not only slaughtered the rights of the New London residents it slaughtered the rights of every property owner in America.

From what I understand the final decision really goes down to each individual community. Though this is a horrible decision and these justices should be removed from office I don't think this decision will change much of anything as it currently is.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From what I understand the final decision really goes down to each individual community. Though this is a horrible decision and these justices should be removed from office I don't think this decision will change much of anything as it currently is.

StatesRights, do you oppose Community Rights?

LOL, that was too easy.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

[??????????]

From what I understand the final decision really goes down to each individual community. Though this is a horrible decision and these justices should be removed from office I don't think this decision will change much of anything as it currently is.

StatesRights, do you oppose Community Rights?

LOL, that was too easy.

Um, no, development for economic or commercial reasons is the right of each community. This decision probably pushes it but of course not every community will go this far.

[Emsworth]

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

The government may not violate the Constitution in order to achieve Pareto efficiency, or anything else, as a matter of fact.

I'm afraid that the opposition keeps saying that this seizure will benefit the community. This is not the salient point. It is utterly irrelevant. What matters is not how useful the seizure is. What matters is if the use is public or private - a point which the opposition has hitherto failed to address.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What in the Constitution gives the government the power to take away property from one individual and give it to a corporation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, Pareto efficiency is constitutionally irrelevant.

I repeat: this use of property is not public. It may entail incidental benefits for the public, but ultimately, the property is being run for profit, and therefore the use is private.

[The Duke]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

As Emsworth said, Pareto efficiency is irrelevant.  This is a thread about the validity of a court ruling, not about policy making.  Economic development is not a public use as understood by the authors of the Fifth Amendment.

As far as policy making goes, you are focusing only on financial gain or loss.  There is no dollar figure you can put on your rights.  When you take away the Constitutional Rights of an individual you've taken something away that's worth more than whatever these people were given for their compensation.

[David S]

Not permitting eminent domain creates all sorts of hold-out problems that impede progress.  If a government want to initiate a revitalization project in a blighted area of a city, they need to have the power to seize existing property at its correct value.  The current owners should be compensated for this value as well as all other associated expenses.  That is, they should be left no worse off than before the property was seized. 

If it were up to existing owners to sell their property at whatever price they could get from the city or the developers, this would give a huge advantage to whatever owners were the last to hold-out; they could extort an completely exorbitant price, and the city would have no choice but to pay it, because they've already purchased the surrounding property.  This in turn gives all the property owners a disintentive to ever sell, because they want to be the ones to hold out for an extortionary price.   

Urban renewal would be basically impossible with eminent domain.  Again, if you don't agree with a particular project, then vote against the officials who are advocating it.  But this is a question of political policy and not constitutionality.

No one is criticizing eminent domain, we are criticizing the Constitutionality of eminent domain to serve the interest of a preferred group of private citizens over another.

As I said before, even Justice Stevens admits that this is NOT a blighted area!

I guarantee you, this issue will be a litmus test for voters in New London for many years.  And I guarantee you that these people's homes will still be bulldozed and their ocean views still given to a pharmaceutical company.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition. So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional. There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong. The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

The proper way to get around such ambiguities is to discern the intent of the authors of a law.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would never have ruled that confiscation of property to give to a massive corporation in order to get more tax revenue is a "public use".

Your implication is that the Constitution should be mutated to serve whatever you think is beneficial to the public reeks of fascism, as it removes all effective limits on government power and makes all right of citizens subjective.

Nick is voicing one of the principles of Socialism and Communism, that individual rights can be sacrificed in the name of the common good. This is one of the reasons why I find them both so repugnant.

Some folks may argue that taking the individual rights of one person to benefit many is a good thing, but what they are missing is that individual rights do not apply to just one person they apply to everyone. When you take one persons rights you sacrifice everyone's rights. That is a very bad thing.

The court's decision not only slaughtered the rights of the New London residents it slaughtered the rights of every property owner in America.

From what I understand the final decision really goes down to each individual community. Though this is a horrible decision and these justices should be removed from office I don't think this decision will change much of anything as it currently is.

The thing is that up until now there was a constitutional protection of property rights that states and /or communities could not violate. That protection is now mostly gone.

BTW on a slightly different topic, has anyone heard how much the owners were compensated, or who decided what fair compensation is?

[A18]

Founding-era dictionaries, Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the ratification debates show that the word commerce meant trade or exchange back when the Constitution was written, not economic activity in general as it does today. Will you support overturning the New Deal now?

[David S]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

Nick you used the same philosophy in a different thread to argue that it was acceptable to murder someone for a large sum of money as long as the money was used to benefit the poor. Once again individual rights are sacrificed for the common good. This is  one of the reasons why I believe Socialism/Communism/Collectivism are not compatible with human rights.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

As Emsworth said, Pareto efficiency is irrelevant.  This is a thread about the validity of a court ruling, not about policy making.  Economic development is not a public use as understood by the authors of the Fifth Amendment.

As far as policy making goes, you are focusing only on financial gain or loss.  There is no dollar figure you can put on your rights.  When you take away the Constitutional Rights of an individual you've taken something away that's worth more than whatever these people were given for their compensation.

Efficiency is important here because we are talking about a case where the Court could have gone either way in their intepretation.  Neither interpretation is wrong from the plain language of the constitution, so the Court fortunately chose to interpret the phrasing in the way that would allow government to best  do their job and promote social welfare.

Plus, I think most of the people who oppose this decision oppose it not because they are all that attached to a particular wording in the constitution, but because they think it is bad policy.  I'm trying to explain why it is actually good policy.  Does anyone here think the decision is a good one policy-wise, but still disagree with it because they think it is an incorrect constitutional interpretation?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

Nick you used the same philosophy in a different thread to argue that it was acceptable to murder someone for a large sum of money as long as the money was used to benefit the poor. Once again individual rights are sacrificed for the common good. This is  one of the reasons why I believe Socialism/Communism/Collectivism are not compatible with human rights.

I don't think I said anything about Pareto efficiency in that thread.  Murdering someone and giving the my money to charity certainly not Pareto efficient.  I happen to believe that Pareto efficiency is generally too strict a standard, and that a lot of transactions can be justified on more utilitarian grounds.   I can understand why a conservative would oppose my point of view on these subjects.

But eminent domain is Pareto efficient; it meets even the most strict standards for economic fairness.  Thus, it should be supported by even conservatives who do not at all believe in utilitarianism.

[muon2]

Not permitting eminent domain creates all sorts of hold-out problems that impede progress.  If a government want to initiate a revitalization project in a blighted area of a city, they need to have the power to seize existing property at its correct value.  The current owners should be compensated for this value as well as all other associated expenses.  That is, they should be left no worse off than before the property was seized. 

If it were up to existing owners to sell their property at whatever price they could get from the city or the developers, this would give a huge advantage to whatever owners were the last to hold-out; they could extort an completely exorbitant price, and the city would have no choice but to pay it, because they've already purchased the surrounding property.  This in turn gives all the property owners a disintentive to ever sell, because they want to be the ones to hold out for an extortionary price.   

Urban renewal would be basically impossible with eminent domain.  Again, if you don't agree with a particular project, then vote against the officials who are advocating it.  But this is a question of political policy and not constitutionality.

No one is criticizing eminent domain, we are criticizing the Constitutionality of eminent domain to serve the interest of a preferred group of private citizens over another.

As I said before, even Justice Stevens admits that this is NOT a blighted area!

I guarantee you, this issue will be a litmus test for voters in New London for many years.  And I guarantee you that these people's homes will still be bulldozed and their ocean views still given to a pharmaceutical company.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. I don't see a definition of "public use" in the document itself, so however the Supreme Court interprets it is the definition. So you can't say that what the Supreme Court has done it unconstitutional. There's room for reasonable disagreement here about what the definition should be, but neither side is obviously wrong. The Court could have decided either way, and ultimately, made the decision which is far more beneficial to the public.

The proper way to get around such ambiguities is to discern the intent of the authors of a law.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would never have ruled that confiscation of property to give to a massive corporation in order to get more tax revenue is a "public use".

Your implication is that the Constitution should be mutated to serve whatever you think is beneficial to the public reeks of fascism, as it removes all effective limits on government power and makes all right of citizens subjective.

Nick is voicing one of the principles of Socialism and Communism, that individual rights can be sacrificed in the name of the common good. This is one of the reasons why I find them both so repugnant.

Some folks may argue that taking the individual rights of one person to benefit many is a good thing, but what they are missing is that individual rights do not apply to just one person they apply to everyone. When you take one persons rights you sacrifice everyone's rights. That is a very bad thing.

The court's decision not only slaughtered the rights of the New London residents it slaughtered the rights of every property owner in America.

From what I understand the final decision really goes down to each individual community. Though this is a horrible decision and these justices should be removed from office I don't think this decision will change much of anything as it currently is.

The thing is that up until now there was a constitutional protection of property rights that states and /or communities could not violate. That protection is now mostly gone.

BTW on a slightly different topic, has anyone heard how much the owners were compensated, or who decided what fair compensation is?

I highlighted your phrase, because it isn't true. The plaintiffs, like the majority of the posters here, want to return to an originalist view of the definitionof "public use". That's fine, but don't say that a protection was removed here. That protection was removed more than a century ago, and the court reaffirmed its removal in this decision. The only addition is that the court allowed states with vague language to take advantage of the right, where previously most assumed that a clear finding of economic need and benefit was essential to use eminent domain.

[John Dibble]

Does anyone else feel that eventually a local government is gonna try this and the neighborhood they try to seize is gonna barricade itself in and resist with guns or something? If imagine if it does others would come in to help them even.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Plus, I think most of the people who oppose this decision oppose it not because they are all that attached to a particular wording in the constitution, but because they think it is bad policy.  I'm trying to explain why it is actually good policy.  Does anyone here think the decision is a good one policy-wise, but still disagree with it because they think it is an incorrect constitutional interpretation?

Actually, I think that while the constitutional interopretation is strained, I can see where the majority on the court is coming from.  However, this is a truly atrocious decision policy wise, and this is coming from someone who thinks that policy wise at least, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council was also a horrible decision.

[The Duke]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

As Emsworth said, Pareto efficiency is irrelevant.  This is a thread about the validity of a court ruling, not about policy making.  Economic development is not a public use as understood by the authors of the Fifth Amendment.

As far as policy making goes, you are focusing only on financial gain or loss.  There is no dollar figure you can put on your rights.  When you take away the Constitutional Rights of an individual you've taken something away that's worth more than whatever these people were given for their compensation.

Efficiency is important here because we are talking about a case where the Court could have gone either way in their intepretation.  Neither interpretation is wrong from the plain language of the constitution, so the Court fortunately chose to interpret the phrasing in the way that would allow government to best  do their job and promote social welfare.

Plus, I think most of the people who oppose this decision oppose it not because they are all that attached to a particular wording in the constitution, but because they think it is bad policy.  I'm trying to explain why it is actually good policy.  Does anyone here think the decision is a good one policy-wise, but still disagree with it because they think it is an incorrect constitutional interpretation?

Actually, no.  Efficiency isn't relevant.  The whole point of Constitutional Rights for Citizens is to ensure that inconvenient rights are still protected.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

So when deciding between two equally valid interpretations of  constitutional wording, the court shouldn't take into account which interpretation would most benefit society?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Justice Thomas wrote a magnificent dissent.

His point was that we should look at the original intent of the amendment and NOT try to twist it into a pretzel.

If you don't like the original constitutional provision, then amend the constitution, don't get judges to legislate from the bench.

[A18]

Justice Thomas wrote a magnificent dissent.

His point was that we should look at the original intent of the amendment and NOT try to twist it into a pretzel.

If you don't like the original constitutional provision, then amend the constitution, don't get judges to legislate from the bench.

*waits for someone to make a point about the Air Force*

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

What was that?

[Bono]

It's not necessarily a principle of socialism, its also a principle of capitalism, and a conservative movement in legal theory. 

It's called Pareto efficiency.  The use of eminent domain makes everyone better off overall without making anyone worse off (the definition of Pareto efficiency).   The person whose property is seized is justly compensated, so he doesn't lose or gain anything, while everyone else now gets a project that will help the economy.

All this takes away is the right of property owners to extort unreasonable compensation for their property as a result of the power they get from holding out.  This is a transaction cost and is an inefficient deadweight loss whether you are a conservative or a liberal.

Now, there are two ways in which the transaction may not be Pareto efficient: (a) if the new project does not actually increase overall public wealth, and (b) if the original owner is not fully compensated so that he is no worse off than before.  The first is a political question that need to be evaluated by elected officials before making the seizure, but is really not the province of the courts.  The second is fair game for a law suit, but one that attacks the seizure on the "just compensation" clause and not the the definition of "public use".

As Emsworth said, Pareto efficiency is irrelevant.  This is a thread about the validity of a court ruling, not about policy making.  Economic development is not a public use as understood by the authors of the Fifth Amendment.

As far as policy making goes, you are focusing only on financial gain or loss.  There is no dollar figure you can put on your rights.  When you take away the Constitutional Rights of an individual you've taken something away that's worth more than whatever these people were given for their compensation.

Now you care about what the authors thought?
To bad you can't keep that line of thinking regarding the "welfare clause", or the "interestate commerce" clause.