Supreme Court ruled private property can be seized

[A18]

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

What was that?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=1003

[Emsworth]

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.

Speaking of which, I think that the courts should keep original intent in mind, but should not rely on it alone. One must consider not only the intent of those who wrote the Constitution and the amendments, but also the intent of those who ratified them. In many cases, one cannot unequivocally state that one interpretation matches the original intention of a clause. Judges cannot conclusively determine if all, or if even a majority of the delegates or of the state legislatures/conventions interpreted the clauses a certain way. (Remember that documents like The Federalist are the opinions of just a few delegates, and need not necessarily represent the views of the majority.)

I do not suggest that original intent should be abandoned as an interpretive tool - I just feel that it should not be the sole or primary one. Instead, a reading of the plain text of the Constitution - what the Framers actually did, not just intended - is preferable wherever possible. A completely literalist reading is not necessary, however.

In this particular case, one can consider the plain meaning of the words "public use." Undoubtedly, these words indicate use by the public or by the government. The view that they refer to use by private corporations is, in my opinion, far too strained.

[The Duke]

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

I disagree that your interpretation of the Constitution is equally valid.

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.

We should be strict in interpeting that portion of the Constitution that protects rights, as they are permanent.  They don't change.

We should give the government flexibility in carrying out its powers, as the needs of the people ARE ever changing.  If you'd like for us to add an Amendment to the US Constitution giving the Congress an explicit authorization to create an Air Force, we can do that.  No one hear can doubt that we have the votes.  But its also a tremendously tedious excercise.

In short, a stricter standard should be applied to rights than to powers, as I think there are major differences between them.

[A18]

Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendment was a response to Hamilton's argument that if you added a bill of rights, someone would come along and claim that those were the only rights protected. His words, not mine: "They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted;[/b] and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted."

So you can see that the framers specifically saw the powers not granted as "rights ... retained by the people."

[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?

I disagree that your interpretation of the Constitution is equally valid.

First of all, I think that just about any case that gets all the way to the Supreme Court is a "close case" where either side has a reasonable argument for their interpretation.  In these case, the Court must consider the policy implication, and almost always does so.

But moreover, the more expansive interpretation of "public use" has been the prevailing interpretation in most states for most of our country's history...at least since the 1870's.  The more restrictive definition is usually encompassed by the term of art "public purpose", which the courts often distinguish from "public use."

In any case, it's really pretty disingenous to dismiss my policy arguments by claiming my textual interpretation is unquestionably wrong when most courts and scholars throughout history say it is not only colorable, but in fact correct.

[A18]

No, courts should not consider what benefits society. Widespread opinion does nothing to defend your argument.

[2952-0-0]

"Fascism should be called corporatism, because it is the merger of corporations and the state."
--Benito Mussolini

[CARLHAYDEN]

In the case in point, steal from the poor, and give to the rich.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

What was that?

SC passed a law that attempted to keep people from building in areas where the next hurricane would likely wash the land away by preventing such construction in areas subject to coastal erosion such that within a few decades, the land would likely not be there.  The definition of those areas was to be done by the South Carolina Coastal Council.  Lucas owned land that was affected by the law so that he couldn't build on as much of it as before and sued.  The court ruled that the action of the SCCC was a taking and that in oprder for the State to do what it did would require that Mr. Lucas be compensated under the emminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment.  That decision has caused all sorts of problems for zoning ordinaces, since as a side effect of the Lucas case, zoning boards have to show that their decisions don't adversely affect the value of a property or else they might end up subject to a lawsuit based on the Lucas decision.  What I would love to see is some government take the Lucas decision to its obvious conclusion and charge landowners for any increases to the value of a property caused by a government decision.  Perhaps then the Court would recognize the utter idiocy of the decision.

[The Duke]

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

I disagree that your interpretation of the Constitution is equally valid.

First of all, I think that just about any case that gets all the way to the Supreme Court is a "close case" where either side has a reasonable argument for their interpretation.  In these case, the Court must consider the policy implication, and almost always does so.

But moreover, the more expansive interpretation of "public use" has been the prevailing interpretation in most states for most of our country's history...at least since the 1870's.  The more restrictive definition is usually encompassed by the term of art "public purpose", which the courts often distinguish from "public use."

In any case, it's really pretty disingenous to dismiss my policy arguments by claiming my textual interpretation is unquestionably wrong when most courts and scholars throughout history say it is not only colorable, but in fact correct.

Nick, nobody asked you what "most legal scholars  throughout history" say.  Its quite obvious that this suggestion is wrong, because for most of our history they consensus was exactly the opposite as it is here.  This is an argument to authority you have out forward.  It is not valid.

Nor is it disingenuous what I've said.  There's nothing disingenuous about it.  Its called strict constructionism, not disingenuous.

We have a Congress to consider policy implications, the Court is there to preserve the Constitution and the rights of the Citizens.  Let me rephrase what I said to Bono.  My rights are not subject to Pareto efficiency.