Revolutions are fought over the rights abrogated by this corrupt decision. The beauty of America was once the protection of the individual rights from the majority.

Now, they tell us the cost of living in this civilized country is compromise of those rights for the greater good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsbYx...

The live video with Ily Somin's presentation on the Kelo eminent domain travesty ended at 1:04 PM, but may become available online at http://www.heritage.org/events/2015/1...

Somin, professor at George Mason University School of Law, has recently published a book by the same title, The Grasping Hand: "Kelo v. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain http://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Hand-L... I don't have the book but from what I have read about it, it focuses on the detailed legal aspects of the controversy over 'public use' versus private development in the name of the 'public good'. I have not seen anything on whether or not he defends property rights against eminent domain in principle.

This is the Heritage Foundation description of Somin's talk:

"In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Connecticut, could condemn fifteen residential properties in order to transfer them to a new private owner. Although the Fifth Amendment only permits the taking of private property for "public use," the Court ruled that the transfer of condemned land to private parties for "economic development" is permitted by the Constitution – even if the government cannot prove that the expected development will ever actually happen. The Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London empowered the grasping hand of the state at the expense of the invisible hand of the market.

"Ilya Somin argues that Kelo was a grave error. Economic development and "blight" condemnations are unconstitutional under both originalist and most "living constitution" theories of legal interpretation. They also victimize the poor and the politically weak for the benefit of powerful interest groups, and often destroy more economic value than they create. Forty-five states passed new laws intended to limit the use of eminent domain in the wake of the Supreme Court’s unpopular ruling. But, as Professor Somin explains, many of the new laws impose few or no genuine constraints on takings.

"The closely divided 5-4 ruling shattered what many believed to be a consensus that virtually any condemnation qualifies as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. It also showed that there is widespread public opposition to eminent domain abuse. The Grasping Hand offers the first book-length analysis by a legal scholar of this controversy, alongside a broader history of the dispute over public use and eminent domain, and an evaluation of reform options."

His argument is a perfect Hayek cultural evolution argument. Principles and logic are at best persuasive and you have to throw the whole kitchen sink at the problem and then argue consensus.

What are your American rights in the 21st Century?
What your Big Brother betters tell you they are.

Eminent Domain should not exist in the United
States of America. Private property should not be
taken without the consent of the owner, whether for
public or private use. We need to pass a Consti-
tutional amendment abolishing it altogether. As to "just compensation", if there are cases where
the owner worked it up and wants to leave it to
his children, that property and no other, then no
compensation in that case could be just.
Maybe there should be provisions for right of
way across someone's land so that three or four
landowners cannot get together and pen some-
one up--that would be a case of false imprison-
ment.

a tragic action imposed on the people who lost their property.
the court should that approved this action should have its members hung by their thumbs.

Great article. Thanks for posting.