I know, I know, there aren’t many of them (except, apparently, in the NY Times editorial office). Regardless, let’s ask some questions of them:
- What is left to restrain a corrupt city official from claiming the land a church sits on via eminent domain and handing it over to a big-box store if the church preaches a doctrine he doesn’t agree with?
- What is to prevent an art museum director from bribing a government official to seize via emminent domain the private collection of one person and adding it to the museum, if the museum can claim it will generate more tax revenue?
- What is to prevent a city official from seizing the firearms of an individual who lives next to a school and “donating” them to a school safety organization, who could then turn right around and destroy them for the “greater good”?
More thoughts later this morning on the decisions handed down today.
UPDATE, 1610 27June2005: Another question, from The Countertop Chronicles: “Can the federal government avoid compliance with [the third] amendment simply by condeming someone’s house and then selling it to Halliburton or another defense contractor who will in return rent it back to the federal government to use as housing?”