Written by: Goemagog

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

That was part of an argument against a proposed bill of rights. The author's main argument is that any rights given to the people would be assumed to be either the only rights held by the people or to mean that the curtailing of specified rights was intended. The resulting compromise was our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our constitution. The ones created as a compromise specifically to allay these concerns were IX and X.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These two amendments are at the core of the constitutionality of libertarianism, that all governments and governmental agencies have no power or authority except those specifically granted to them by the constitution.

The Kelo decision is therefore an abomination.

Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, whatever a state legislature or city council says is public use, is public use. They did put a little restriction on such seizures previously...

the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party

Which means?

Also rejected is petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue

The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan.

Nothing. Declaring it to be for public use puts land seizures beyond question as far as the court is concerned.

Our earliest cases in particular embodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the "great respect" that we owe to state legislatures and state courts in discerning local public needs

And now 'local public needs' trump your rights. If the local public decides it 'needs' fewer people of your ethnic group, too bad. If the local public decides it 'needs' fewer people with your religious beliefs, too bad. if the local public decides it 'needs' you to shut up, too bad.

Unless you think that there isn't always a need when one is professed.

so sad.

Goe, been thinking a lot about cocktails the past few days.