Kelo v. New London SC Ruling

[alphaniner]

Has anyone read the "Opinion of the Court" from the Kelo v. New London case?  I came across it this afternoon and it is even more disturbing than I could have imagined.  It cites as precedent a forced land transfer to eliminate the "social and economic evils of a land oligopoly," and a forced transfer of research data to "eliminate a significant barrier to entry in the pesticide market and thereby enhance competition."   Oy vey, I had no idea things had gone this far!

[alohamonkey]

Kelo v. New London is how I actually came across nhfree.com.  I was doing research for my Business Law course when I came across Lauren's protests down there.  I just dug up the case study I did on this case and I'll try to attach it to this post . . . I've never done this before so we'll see how it goes. 

OK, I attached my case brief to this post and I'll attach the full-length paper to the next post.

[alohamonkey]

Here's the full-length one . . . cut me some slack.  It was my first law course . . . but I loved it.  Any constructive criticism is welcomed though.

[alphaniner]

Nice avatar.  Did you look into the Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff case?  Just wondering 'cause of your name

Thanks for posting the case study.  I'll dl and take a look.

[KBCraig]

"social and economic evils of a land oligopoly,"

Sounds like EthanAllen wrote the decision. 

[alphaniner]

Sounds like EthanAllen wrote the decision. 

Give him some credit, even Jefferson warned about the dangers associated with the concentration of land ownership.

Of course, Jefferson also said "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'"

[supperman15]

Sounds like EthanAllen wrote the decision. 

Give him some credit, even Jefferson warned about the dangers associated with the concentration of land ownership.

Of course, Jefferson also said "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'"

i new i always liked that Jefferson guy

[EthanAllen]

Sounds like EthanAllen wrote the decision. 

Give him some credit, even Jefferson warned about the dangers associated with the concentration of land ownership.

Of course, Jefferson also said "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'"

I don't believe he was referring to land but rather labor-based property.

excerpt:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.  Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as common stock for man to labour and live on.  If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation.  If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed" (Thomas Jefferson, The Republic of Letters, p. 390).