First of all, Randy Barnett over at Volokh Conspiracy has some useful lessons for those watching the coming debate over a new Supreme Court Justice.
Sen. Cornyn (who would also make a good Supreme) has introduced a bill overturning the recent Kelo v. New London decision about taking private property for "public use". I understand Sen. Thune is co-sponsoring the bill. Prof. Blanchard and I discussed this case while in Boise, and I think it's fair to say that I am more disturbed by the broad definition of "public use" than is Prof. Blanchard. I will let him describe his opinion, which I do have some sympathy with. My own take is that "public use" means something that is owned and/or operated by the public. The Supreme Court's allowance of taking private property for private companies renders "public use" operationally meaningless. This is problematic, to say the least. The primary effect of taking private property for use as, say, a public park, is to benefit the public, although no doubt private benefits accrue. The primary effect of taking private property to give to private business is to profit private business, although no doubt public benefits accrue such as the increase in tax revenue. I favor these efforts on the part of Senators Cornyn and Thune. To see the text of the bill, go to this site and search for S. 1313.
Recent Comments