Last Friday was the first anniversary of a sad occasion, the day the U.S. Supreme Court said the Constitution permits the politicians who run New London, Connecticut, to throw people out of their homes so the land can become part of a ritzy private waterfront development that is expected to produce more tax revenue than the residences that stand there now. In modern America workers are expropriated for the benefit of" capitalists."

Stephan Kinsella - 7/5/2006

Look, you shoot the wolves on that side, I'll shoot the wolves on this side. Kay?

Sheldon Richman - 7/2/2006

I'll buy that.

Stephan Kinsella - 7/1/2006

And that is sad.

Sheldon Richman - 7/1/2006

The Supreme Court did not approve of the Kelo et al. takings on Tenth Amendment grounds.

Stephan Kinsella - 7/1/2006

"Last Friday was the first anniversary of a sad occasion, the day the U.S. Supreme Court said the Constitution permits the politicians who run New London, Connecticut, to throw people out of their homes so the land can become part of a ritzy private waterfront development that is expected to produce more tax revenue than the residences that stand there now."

Sheldon, it happens that the Constitution *does* "permit* state politicians to do such things, simply because it does not prohibit them. Likewise it "permits" the Chinese government to censor the use of the Internet. It is not particularly "sad" that the Constitution "permits" China (or New London) to do things, because the alternative is for the feds to have centralized control over states, cities, and other countries (as the case may be).

I certainly do not see why it is "sad" to SAY--i.e. admit, recognize--that the Constitution "permits" these things. Especially since it does.