Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
It's not. That's a different issue. Issue here is, our country (through the Constitution) professes a higher degree of attention to the value of the individual over the group than other countries have historically embraced. One of the touchstones of that concept lies in our right, over the right of our limited government, to retain our property. We allow, as an extreme exception, our government to take some things from us (with compensation) only on a rather high showing of public need. Not just benefit, but need. (I'm speaking of tradition here, not recent jurisprudence.)
Lately, it's degenerated to "benefit". Kelo is the best recent attempt to wind this "group over individual" attitude back.
|
I don't understand where you disagree with me as a question of constitutional principle, particularly because this distinction between "benefit" and "need" sounds formalist and elusive. I suggest that the concern you raise should not be imported into the constitution through Scalia-like judicial activism, but should inform when legislatures actually exercise the powers they have.
And what's your answer to the rail hypo I just spun to G3?
