perfidy

If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

So says Clarence Thomas, regarding the second elimination of a clearly stated constitutional limitation in as many weeks. This particular travesty has been a long time coming. The courts have been drifting in this direction for decades. Earlier cases, notably in Pittsburgh and Portland, saw home and business owners kicked to the curb to satisfy the "public good" of large corporations and rich developers.

Now, I am not one to rail against capitalism and corporations as a matter of habit. When business entities and rich individuals are made to play by the same rules and on the same field as everyone else, the harm that they can do is limited, and what harm that is done can be remedied in law. This ruling changes that altogether. Now ownership of property is subject to the whim of whoever last arranged for a city councilmen to get a blowjob, or who wrote the most recent check to the mayor’s reelection fund. Property rights are no longer absolute. Whoever has connections can have property rights reassigned, and the whole of government enforcement powers will be enlisted to point a gun at the head of the poor schmuck who wants to keep his home.

The rule of law is a cool thing. Five of our Supreme Court Justices have a pretty hazy conception of what that means. Property rights are in many respects the true basis of liberty. (Not freedom. Freedom means having nothing else to lose.) Autonomy depends on having a sanctuary from which to exercise it. A man’s home must be his castle. Over the last century, but especially over the last couple decades, the Constitution has ceased to be what it originally was – the final arbiter of what is permissible for government. So many provisions and amendments have been twisted beyond recognition as to be entirely negated. Just in the last ten years we have seen serious inroads into the

Slippery slope arguments are always dangerous, but things like this really tickle my paranoia. Like Johno, I immediately thought of Ruby Ridge. But I also thought of this:

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

How do you go about arresting these trends? The list of bad things is long: the drug war, RICO laws, sneak ‘n’ peak searches, the militarization of law enforcement, Waco, Ruby Ridge, restrictive gun laws, increased surveillance, certain provisions of the Patriot Act, campaign finance reform, ad infinitum. And hand in hand with the creepy illogic and clear unconstitutionality of the bad laws is the creepy incompetence of those enforcing the laws. Ruby Ridge and Waco are classic examples, but the fumbling of the BATFE, TSA, Border Patrol and numerous others are just as bad.

I don’t know where this is all going. But on days like yesterday, I have a feeling we might be in a handbasket.

[wik] Some other good links: Justice Thomas’ complete dissent, Professor Bainbridge’s essay at TCS, and The Opinion Journal’s take on the matter.

[alsø wik]Zach Wendling has a sort of funny, kind of scary idea about the only likely defense against developers paying off local officials to take your house.