The more I think about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding personal property, the more angry I get. And the more I am grasping at possible remedies.
It seems that this watering down of the Fifth Amendment could be a forerunner to a fight on the Tenth Amendment - making upcoming appointments to the bench even more important. Could the states choose to pass legislation to provide greater protection to property owners than that now provided by the Constitution...as erroneously interpreted by the Supremes?
Here in Arizona, for instance, we had a case several years ago. Ace Hardware decided they wanted to move their store to a more visible corner, and convinced the City of Mesa to take the property for them under Eminent Domain. Randy Bailey, owner of the brake shop being displaced, chose to fight. He prevailed, partly because the Arizona constitution specifically prohibits the taking of private property for private use. In the final decision, Judge John C. Gemmill said
“The constitutional requirement of ‘public use’ is only satisfied when the public benefits and characteristics of the intended use substantially predominate over the private nature of that use”Wise words.
Does this latest Supreme Court decision trump the Arizona constitution, or does our constitution protect us as spelled out in the Tenth Amendment? Is this a way for the people to assert their claims to maintain that which they have earned?
Posted by Vox at June 27, 2005 01:48 PM | politics