Manual de Supervivencia contra el Uso Abusivo del Dominio Eminente
Yesterday, the Arlington, VA based Institute for Justice (IJ) published a fantastic Spanish version of their well received “Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide”. The guide, “Manual de Supervivencia contra el Uso Abusivo del Dominio Eminente”, is a great tool for minority communities threatened by eminent domain. This past June, IJ published the white paper “Victimizing the Vulnerable”, which argued that minority communities are particularly threatened by eminent domain abuse because city officials believe them to be the least politically effective. Justice Thomas made a similar claim in his dissent in the 2005 case Kelo v. New London (for those of you unfamiliar with the case, Kelo ruled that takings for economic development purposes were constitutionally permissible). Thomas consequently argued that eminent domain takings for economic development ought to be weighed by a higher level of judicial scrutiny under the Carolene Products (1938) test. The doctrine demands higher judicial scrutiny when legislation:
- On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge).
- Attempts to distort or rig the political process.
- Discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process.
Unfortunately, the majority in Kelo did not accept Thomas’s line of argumentation and minority communities have been left vulnerable since. In yesterday’s press release IJ’s Castle Coalition director Steven Anderson argued “In the past, the Spanish-speaking population has had limited access to the vital information necessary to save their homes and small businesses from eminent domain abuse. With the Manual de Supervivencia, those days are now over.”
No obviously related posts.
It doesn’t just leave minorities vulnerable, it leaves everyone not connected or wealthy vulnerable.
Kelo v. New London decided that the state could take private property from one private citizen and transfer it to another. Basically it legalized theft. Period.
That victimizes everyone who hasn’t pockets as deep as Multi-National Corporations, cities, states, and wealthy individuals who just want more that isn’t theirs.
Thomas’s dissent was a pleasant surprise. He was right and the majority of the court was,not only wrong, but knowingly wrong, and just plain didn’t give a damn.