Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 01:09:15 +0000

Apropos Kelo v. New London dommen om privat ejendomsret og de igangværende omrokeringer i USA’s højesteret, så havde fhv. justitsminister Ed Meese (nu ved Heritage Foundation) i går en fin kronik i Wall Street Journal om emnet og om den fremtidige sammensætning af USA’s højesteret (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007209). Heri hedder det bl.a.:”Despite current hype from Senate Democrats, the landmark cases of the next five years probably won’t concern civil rights, abortion or other issues that have liberals so worked up. Current court vote-counts leave little room for major shifts, no matter what the judicial philosophy of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement. Instead, I believe some of the biggest cases will deal with property rights.Justice John Roberts may well find waiting on his desk one property-rights case potentially as momentous as the unfortunately decided Kelo v. New London. In Kelo the court gave government the right to take property from one private citizen or company and give it to another. In this anticipated case–Stearns Co. v. U.S.–the lower courts have overturned centuries of precedent, demonstrating that, when it comes to protecting private property, in Ronald Reagan’s favorite maxim, government isn’t the answer; it’s the problem….Few constitutional protections are less ambiguous than the requirement that private property must not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” It is rooted in common law and is almost as ancient as common law itself. To guard against abuse, the Framers made these principles explicit, matching the government’s blunt power to compel sale of private property with an equally blunt obligation to pay for it. When another branch attempts to shirk this duty, the Constitution requires the judiciary to defend property owners….The understanding of rightful “public use” may change over time. Yet the obligation of compensation does not, and justice requires that government pay for what it takes. If the Supreme Court recognizes the profound issues at stake in Stearns and accepts it for review, Justice Roberts and his brethren will have an opportunity in their next term to confirm one of the bedrock rights of our entire legal system. That would be a landmark decision.”

Af: Anonym

Anonym — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:39:00 +0000

Kommentarer til: Ejendomsrettigheder er menneskerettigheder

Af: Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard

Af: Anonym