3 ms·

How is using property to profit private business "for public use"? > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between private and public use of property—and

How is using property to profit private business "for public use"? > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." > "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'"

dragonwriter 4y ago
> How is using property to profit private business “for public use”? Because, as the Supreme Court has consistently held since interpreting the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply the 5th Amendment’s protections against the states in the first place (without which, the issue would be moot since absent such application there would be no federal constraint at all) use in which the state action is pursuing a legitimate public purpose has been held to be a “public use”. Which presumably you already know, because surely you read the majority opinion in Kelo in the course of locating and quoting (without attribution) O’Connor’s dissent.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]