Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Placeholder for a post on IJ and Kelo.
In 1994 I wrote, in a master's thesis [link], about Clint Bolick's plans for IJ, and how that model could be used by other public interest law firms, such as the one I wanted to have about free and equal elections, fighting for minor party ballot access under state constitutions.
For a long time it seemed like IJ was more bark than bite, well-meant, but not getting very far in advancing its agenda of restoring economic liberty via the P&I clause. But this has been a breakthrough year. Not so much for the case they won, about the economic liberty to sell wine online, but for the case they lost. I've written before about how they won by losing - getting 4 and 1/3 votes in a case that turned on an obscure unnoticed two words in the 5th amendment - public use. But the real victory came after the case was handed down, in the furor of publicity. Maybe it a matter of lucky timing - it was a last big case of the O'Connor court, too soon to say Rehnquist court. It looks as if Connecticut, embarrassed at being caught in the corrupt game of public-private partnerships pioneered by Mussolini, will act to ban such takings. Tennessee, or was it Oklahoma, acted to legalize casket sales after IJ "lost" a case there.
There was even the germ of a fun suggestion - Connecticut could just abolish the city of New London altogether. Municipal charters can be revoked, and no compensation is due. The city is the creature of the state. I haven't heard yet, but I'm guessing the New London city council will get the hint. Meanwhile, congress is looking at legislation to prevent the squandering of federal funds for these sorts of private takings, and other state legislatures are likely to act. IJ has tapped into a strong national consensus. Conservatives value private property and the sanctity of the home, while liberals like to be seen as standing up for the little guy against the big corporations. This post could use some minor revision and enabled links, but that was the general idea.
I was awoken before noon today. My landlord had gotten threatening letters from the zoning goons, so he sent a guy out who got my lawn mower running, and we trimmed shrubs and hauled trash and murdered flowers and trees until we got the place looking more presentable. In return, my rent will go up, and the ozone problem gets worse. That's the kind of uncompensated regulatory taking I live with on a day to day basis here.
In 1994 I wrote, in a master's thesis [link], about Clint Bolick's plans for IJ, and how that model could be used by other public interest law firms, such as the one I wanted to have about free and equal elections, fighting for minor party ballot access under state constitutions.
For a long time it seemed like IJ was more bark than bite, well-meant, but not getting very far in advancing its agenda of restoring economic liberty via the P&I clause. But this has been a breakthrough year. Not so much for the case they won, about the economic liberty to sell wine online, but for the case they lost. I've written before about how they won by losing - getting 4 and 1/3 votes in a case that turned on an obscure unnoticed two words in the 5th amendment - public use. But the real victory came after the case was handed down, in the furor of publicity. Maybe it a matter of lucky timing - it was a last big case of the O'Connor court, too soon to say Rehnquist court. It looks as if Connecticut, embarrassed at being caught in the corrupt game of public-private partnerships pioneered by Mussolini, will act to ban such takings. Tennessee, or was it Oklahoma, acted to legalize casket sales after IJ "lost" a case there.
There was even the germ of a fun suggestion - Connecticut could just abolish the city of New London altogether. Municipal charters can be revoked, and no compensation is due. The city is the creature of the state. I haven't heard yet, but I'm guessing the New London city council will get the hint. Meanwhile, congress is looking at legislation to prevent the squandering of federal funds for these sorts of private takings, and other state legislatures are likely to act. IJ has tapped into a strong national consensus. Conservatives value private property and the sanctity of the home, while liberals like to be seen as standing up for the little guy against the big corporations. This post could use some minor revision and enabled links, but that was the general idea.
I was awoken before noon today. My landlord had gotten threatening letters from the zoning goons, so he sent a guy out who got my lawn mower running, and we trimmed shrubs and hauled trash and murdered flowers and trees until we got the place looking more presentable. In return, my rent will go up, and the ozone problem gets worse. That's the kind of uncompensated regulatory taking I live with on a day to day basis here.
Comments:
Post a Comment
