The Text of the Fifth Amendment

[billroper]

Just so that we have in front of us the thing that we're discussing in my previous post, I went out and dug this up from a copy of the Constitution:

Amendment V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Seems clear to me. Your mileage may vary if you're a Supreme Court Justice.

Comments

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

B

[billroper]

I heard about this. I'm hoping the community goes along with it, if for no other reason than the object lesson.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I just read this:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004744.php#more

It makes some interesting points I had not considered. (For one, I didn't realize the narrowness of the decision.) If I cared more, I would find more to read about this.

B

[billroper]

I just read the article. The problem with the writer's theory is that he assumes that local governments are either incorruptible by developer cash or capable of being turned out by voter outrage. To pick two cities that the town that I live in borders, look at Chicago (Democratic) and Rosemont (Republican) and ask if those assumptions apply there.

I don't think so.

(One could argue that Mayor Bilandic was turned out as a result of voter outrage, but that wasn't over corruption -- save for the fact that Bridgeport apparently did get plowed -- that was over making really stupid statements in the face of a really big snowfall.)

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

The only theory that matters is whether the law is constitutional, not whether it is a good idea. And the arguments that the law was constitutional were ones that I had not thought about before.

B

[billroper]

I agree that the only theory that matters is whether the law is constitutional, not whether it is a good idea; however, the article seems to dwell on producing examples where it would be a good idea to condemn property and using those to argue that therefore we should define "public use" in a way that wouldn't appear to be a public use if one simply reads the words as written.

I would theorize that one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights is to prevent us from doing things that might "seem like a good idea" at the expense of the rights of the individual.