More on the Eminent Domain Fiasco

QandO has another good entry on the topic today.

In the meantime, there are three possible political solutions.

1) If the Supreme Court has ruled that States and localities can set their own Eminent Domain laws, then we ought to demand that our State Legislatures impose harsh restrictions on the applicability of Eminent Domain.

2) Instead of the current, risible "flag burning amendment" nonsense, Congress should be pressured to look at an amendment clarifying the nature and extent of Property Rights, and the limitations of Eminent Domain.

3) Originalists appointments to the Supreme Court.

I think there is one more to be added as I pointed out yesterday.

I suppose this really forces everyone who is appalled by this to go to the extreme in politics to solve such problems. If local politicians try this stunt, then it will be required that the public make an extreme response assuring them that they will lose their office and any further prospect of being in politics.

I think the amendment to the constitution is an excellent idea. Far better than foolish actions about the flag.

Now, how does one force the state government to enact draconian laws forbidding such stupidity?

UPDATE:
The NYT has an Editorial that congratulates the Supremes on the Kelo decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling yesterday that the economically troubled city of New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to spur development was a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest. It also is a setback to the "property rights" movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.

Being totally out of touch with the topic they seem to think a finding on eminent domain is relevant to "property rights" groups trying to block government regulation. Well, yes in the most extreme it may be a set back since the government now has no restrictions on what they can take from the private citizen.

Let's not forget that the NYT is a big winner in a similar case where NYC took private property to give to NYT. Another travesty of justice.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence "so long as it might be upgraded." That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.

Oh yes, O'Connor is exaggerating. Though this dolt seems to have missed that the former restrictions as assumed based on the "public good" meaning "public possession" are no longer in place. Her warning is more than apt. It will also require popular local legislation to prevent those local governments from using this finding to abuse this finding. It may not occur often, but the potential of abuse is there. Just remember that you could be the target.

Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs.

Ah yes, the Utilitarian Ethics analysis. Utter rubbish. The most good for the most people. That wonderful philosophy that fails to reach the level of reality. To hell with a couple of people as long as it gives the city more taxes and adds a few jobs. Wonder if this editor was on the losing end of this scenario if he would chirp so smugly.