Like he has either the guts or the clout!

He's a tired, broken old lion, and he's going to be kicked around mercilessly and brutally by everyone (how long till his Dad joins in) for the next 2 years.

I hope Rove's buddies' commissions and Abramoff's bribes were worth it for them. They certainly screwed us.

But hey, as long as the right people get rich condemning the right parcels of land so as to put in the right types of shopping centers.

So were Reagan and Clinton. It's just not as hard a job as you need to think it is.

Bruno, I'm second to none in my contempt for Baker and Rudman, but Kelo was won by the leftside of the bench. I don't think Rove nor Ambramoff orchestrated it.

Kelo was a victory for strict constructionists/original intent. Disposing of eminent domain would have been appallingly activist. The problem was that the attorneys didn't understand their own case and the Constitution. The appropriate argument is that you didn't receive just compensation, not that your land can't be taken.

It's easy enough for State governments to place strictures on eminent domain, that would prevent those things Bruno is concerned about. Many States have. Don't expect the Constitution to prevent all abuses of power.

Bruno, I got news for you: They'll be kicking around W long after 20 January 2009. What do you think the first thing out of Hillary's mouth (or McCain's, for that matter) will be when the Islamist terror masters test her with a terror attack on the US? And what do you think the right will be doing BEFORE the Hillary bashing begins in earnest after said attack?

W cannot win, and it definitely is not a matter of a supposed lack of "Reaganesque" speaking abilities. So if I were W (and Boy, am I glad I'm not!), I would just state to the world after absorbing this worthless ISG report "I've decided to stay the course" for the next two years. Then I can say to Hillary/McCain "It's your tarbaby now!"

I did not mean to directly connect the corruption of eminent domain directly to the corruption of Rove and his buddies.

It was overstretch on my part, brought about by the distress caused by watching my civilization slide into a sink hole of corruption that strectches across all domains. Sorry.

As for OJ's semantics, it's ok as far as it goes. In practice, "abuse of power" is becoming so ubiquitous that we don't even notice it any more.

When a town council condemns a property merely because it wants a different kind of retail outlet, and forces a sale that drives down the price, so as to turn over the property to an unfairly enriched party, it is clearly unjust compensation, and clearly an abuse of power with in reach of the SCOTUS.

It is becoming clear that the merging of government, corporate, and NGO interests are a clear and present danger to people's "pursuit of happiness." The idea that we can change the laws at the state level is quaint, but the entire N. East, stretching to IL is increasingly controlled by interests that are able to purchase legislation while simultaneously silencing/shouting down any opposition.

At least 8 of 9 anti-Kelo initiatives passed. Libertarians are good for something at least.

You're stumbling towards insight. It would be a problem if the state did not adequately compensate, but there's nothing wrong with the taking itself, indeed, it's sanctioned by the Constitution. Your argument is against the facts of the case, not the law.

h:

Yes, the absence of legislation previously reflected the non-controversial nature of eminent domain.

No, the absence of legislation reflected the fact that no one had ever conceived before that you could take someone's land in order to give it to a strip mall developer, as opposed to for building an airport, freeway, etc.

Doesn't it matter, as a Constitutional issue, how the land is utilized? I doubt that eminent domain was originally intended as a windfall of the kind that b mentions. Someone correct me if I'm misinterpreting that.

It does nicely illustrate some of the dangerous stuff that occurs when government and business get together. Happily, as some here have noted, states can take measures to prevent this sort of thing, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says about it.

Doesn't matter so long as the purpose is public, which it is by definition when the state is the actor.

There is no windfall, which is why the lawyers don't argue that point. The compensation was just.

Back on topic, OJ's proposed opening bid to Syria provides no incentive for their cooperation. I would suggest something more along the line: "As the Iraqi forces take over internal security, the U.S. forces will secure the borders, allowing border crossing at a few designated check points. All other areas will be free-fire zones, including staging areas and supply depots, even if across the border == even if in Damacus." Substitute Tehran for Damacus and repeat to the Iranians.

OJ:

I don't follow how taking someone's land for government projects like bridges and roads is the same as taking it and then immediately handing it over to a private interest for their own purposes, regardless of the economic effects it may have. I suspect the Founding Fathers were okay with the first idea but would have been horrified by the second one.

I don't know the legislative history but I'm betting the second situation is also a relatively new development.

Hardly. The Founders were enthusiasts for a variety of canal company schemes and the like.

OJ:

Got a citation on them using the government to take private land and give it their favorite sugar-daddies? I'm not saying it never happened, I just want to see it.

If elected I promise a SuperTarget on every street corner, huzzah.

(I'd vote for me. Throw in a CostCo every other block and I could ride the wave all the way to Penn, Ave.)

I think you'll find the concern in takings cases is generally whether the original owner is fairly compensated, not whether his property can be taken, which is a well settled question as reflected by including specific takings language in the Constitution.

A quick google of eminent domain canal company returns this among many others:

www.canals.org/researchers/middlesexcanal.html

here's one for george washington canal company

www.nps.gov/choh/historyculture/georgewashingtonandcanals.htm

It may benefit the public to have the right shopping center on the right parcel of land. I believe eminent domain is used to avoid paying just compensation especially in the case of a private transaction. Otherwise, what would be the point of using it. The very fact that the developer is interested in a parcel of land alters its value. Most people will sell if the price is right. Why shouldn't the original property owner benefit as well as the public, greedy politicians, and the developer.

It's not so used, which is why the owners did not argue that compensation wasn't adequate. If it were they'd prevail.

Matt,

The whole history of Omaha's beloved Union Pacific Railroad is an exercise of government taking land out West (by force of arms as well to eminent domain) and parceling out the Rights of Way to a private interest.

As was the case with just about every railroad west of the Mississippi. In fact, the railroads got special privileges to obtain Rights of Way that exist to this very day.

Back on topic. There's a lot of worry and concern that Bush is going to wobble because he hasn't spoken up very much on the topic. And yes there is some thought, as Bruno notes, that Bush and his administration have run out of gas.

A presentation to the nation, reenforcing why we went in the first place, and why being nice to Syria and Iran is the exact opposite thing to do, is what is needed now.

Heck, up until this past year, Colorado allowed eminent domain rights to be granted to PRIVATE TOLL ROAD builders/operators. That dated back to the mining camp days of the late 19th century.

It was changed because some Denver metro area speculator wanted to grab some land east of the metro to build a private toll road that would ostensibly bypass I-25.

AWW,

And to whom does Bush owe this presentation? You seem to forget, along with too many folks, that Bush does not have to get ANYBODY from his adminstration elected to ANYTHING in 2008. Therefore, Bush can do more or less whatever he chooses when it comes to Iraq.

I wouldn't be fully surprised to see Bush give the "stay the course" message after digesting that worthless ISG report. And for those who worry about Bush's "legacy" or "place in history:" Do you have any evidence that W cares about that at this time?

Brad - Yes Bush and Co aren't facing the voters anymore but getting some more support on the war from the GOP, GOP supporters, and so forth might pay dividends in getting more support on other issues like tax cuts, social security, and so forth. Right now it seems like Bush is in the corner getting pounded by the Dems, MSM, etc. - it would be nice if he got out of the corner.

I agree that Bush doesn't seem to care about his legacy but knows winning in Iraq will take care of a lot of things

The problem with the administration is that it was "out of gas" the day after the 2004 election. Other than Roberts and (belatedly) Alito & Bolton, everything since has been reactive. The President has given very good speeches, but nothing has happened. The political capital Bush talked about immediately after the election almost as immediately turned into a deflated balloon.

Is it because Andrew Card left? Is it because Frist and Hastert proved to be formless lumps of dough? Is it because Condi has rapidly become an empty suit, as bloodless (and feckless) as her bureaucracy? Is it because the media really is getting their 15% bonus? Is it because Rumsfeld didn't kick enough inertial butt in the Pentagon? Is it because the President failed to clearly follow through on the doctrine that bore his name?

All of the above, to one degree or another. Throw in the immigration issue, tinged with GOP foolishness and media/Democratic exploitation (and the President's unwillingness to confront Vicente Fox), and the corruption (spending)problems (along with Foley and Hastert's screeching over the Jefferson search), and you have the present state of the GOP.

It is discouraging to watch the solid (though admittedly slender) victory in 2004 go down the drain in less than 2 years. That is why Bruno is despondent and others are disgusted.

However, I still marvel that people like Bill Quick and Stephen Green have a perverse joy in Bush's misfortunes now, just because they predicted them if their advice wasn't followed. Last time I checked, neither of them is in Congress, and neither of them is particularly happy with Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

But here is the real downer - 2 years ago, I laughed when people tried to compare the present time to the 1930s. To me, that meant believing that the 'enemies' were as active and evil as Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo; and it meant that our side was as blind, vain, and cowardly as Stanley Baldwin, Leon Blum, and even Alger Hiss.

But after watching virtually the entire Democratic party for the past 2 years, I am not so sure. And there are plenty of Republicans who are up there, too (from Hagel to the sob sisters to Voinovich to Shays to the Bakers, Powells, etc.). One thing is for sure - if the President absorbs the ISG report and goes Potomac for the next 2 years, it really will be 1938. And for some parts of the world, that means only months until Sept. 1, 1939. The US may get a few more years, but perhaps not. And by then, our only response will be to nuke Mecca, because we will have zero influence or ability to do anything else.

Jim, I agree almost totally, except that I think it's more 1940: the war has started, but we're in a bit of a lull before the bad guys mount another big offensive. (We don't seem to have the guts to make the next big move.)

OJ, it's absurd to think that eminent domain means that governments can take any real estate they want and turn it over to private parties for any purpose. For roads, dams, schools, etc., it's usually fine, even when privately owned, but to replace residences with residences or some businesses with others? The Founders would revolt at such regal behavior.

Jim Hamlen said it well as can be said in my opinion. The reason I'm commenting is about the person he mentioned briefly. That is SoS Rice. Granted I get most news from internet so miss some but I've not read or heard anything about her in perhaps a month. Is she totally overwhelmed by it all?

If we're going to go back in time, then lets go way back. We need another Crusade. Nothing short of total war against Islam will save us. 1939-1940, hardly.

Papaya:

Hardly, the Founders would have owned the enterprises receiving the land.

We already won the war. It's 1989, not 1939. the remaining Arab totalitarians are paper facades just waiting to fall.

Jim, beautifully said. Ditto all the way. For the first time in my life, I'm really fearful of the future.

AWW, Bush owes the GOP nothing at this time. That became quite apparent when Bush had his bonafides on the GWOT questioned by people on the right. The GOP was lucky that Bush even helped them mitigate the damage as much as he did.

Frankly, erp, it is all about managing the situation enough to pass it on to Hillary. And even more frankly, the Neocons have to stop it with the 1938-39 comparisons. Ahmadinejad is too much of a camera whore to do anything silly enough to disrupt that gig.

Brad, I can no longer trust myself to recognize sarcasm but I'll take the chance and put down your statement about Hillary as such, but ... just in case you were serious, let me say that I'd frankly rather have Ahmadinejad in the White House than she.