Substantive Law Posts For Dummies

I have had very little sleep in the last few days due to a fritzy air conditioner. I actually woke up at 6am (for anyone who actually knows me, that is a fucking unbelievable claim) to start hassling the AC repair shop to fix the damn thing. Alas, my wish has been granted and the oven I've been living in has cooled from a comfy 90 degrees when the sun is down to 81 under the noonday sun (when I awaken I expect the temperature to by hoovering around 65).

Of course, out of sheer stupidity I have to scan the internet to feed my childlike addition to easily accessible information. And of course, the Supreme Court decides to hand down its decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case right when I want to catch a few winks for the first time in around 48 hours. I'd been following this case with some interest ever since I stumbled on the Oyez site, searching for the Oral argument date for the Grokster case.

At any rate, with a soft cool bed calling my name (and without having read the actual text of the opinion yet) I have to say that verdict is somewhat troubling. I read a snipet of the minority's opinion (written by a vehement Sandra Day) and agree that the "fallout from this decision will not be random." In fact, I can think of several stodgy and suspect city council members (slash entreprenuers) who will undoubtedly use this decision as rallying tool to exact strip malls and Starbucks where ever poor (and undoubtedly black and hispanic) people live. At the same time, I got the sense that the majority was really trying to dodge the substantive issues by defering to local officials as the best decision makers in situations of this nature, rather than a Federal Judge. While this does have some federalistic appeal to it, it still means that municipal gov't can evict poor people to build a mall, and no disinterested third party can tell them that it's a bad idea.

On the flip side, I think this decision says something about the state of property rights in the United States. The right to the pursuit of happiness (i.e. property rights) was a concept core to the spirit of these United States as well to the economic prosperity that would be required to effectively govern such a revolutionary spirit. Hamilton (et. al) demonstrated a keen understanding of the fundamental (read: Adam Smith) economic theory of his day when he penned several letters to various New York publications which would later be coined the Federalist Papers (thank you Prof. Bobbitt). Without the strong property rights envisioned back in 1787, America never would have seen the economic prosperity that we see today. However, there are many who think that today's concept of property rights actually conflict with the greater purpose of the Consitution: life and liberty. The expansion of the 5th amendments taking clause will probably be seen as a small step towards the erosion of property rights. The next step? Maybe getting rid of that fucking Mickey Mouse provision in the copyright laws....or....a victory for music pirates (and technological innovation and the spirit of progress) in the Grokster case. We can really only hope.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would prefer that the Supreme Court not allow money grubbing real estate developers to seduce desperate municipal gov'ts into condemning private citizen's homes; but, if we are gonna be reducing the reach of property rights, lets be sure that peoples lives and liberty are not also being limited and restrained by the Gov't. I mean come on, you can't illegally tap my phones, monitor my emails, check my library reading list and then kick me out of my house to build a shopping mall. Thats just too fucking much for me to handle. If I wanted to be treated that way, I'd move to Cuba.

ok, sorry no links, maybe after an hour or two of sleep.