Walter Williams: It is not yours. It is theirs.

From Townhall.com, Dr. Williams fulminates on the legalization of the theft of "our" property by our intellectual and moral superiors.

TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE! TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE!

Last week's U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. New London helps explain the socialist attack on President Bush's nominees to the federal bench. First, let's look at the case.

TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE! TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE!

The city government of New London, Conn., has run upon hard times, with residents leaving and its tax base eroding. Private developers offered to build a riverfront hotel, private offices and a health club in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But there was a bit of a problem. Owners of 15 homes in the stable middle-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood refused the city's offer to buy their homes, but no sweat. The city turned over its power of eminent domain -- its ability to take private property for public use -- to the New London Development Corporation, a private body, to take the entire neighborhood for private development. The city condemned the homeowners' properties. The homeowners sued and lost in the state court, and last week they lost in the U.S. Supreme Court.

TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE! TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE!

The framers of our Constitution gave us the Fifth Amendment in order to protect us from government property confiscation. The Amendment reads in part: "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Which one of those 12 words is difficult to understand? The framers recognized there might be a need for government to acquire private property to build a road, bridge, dam or fort. That is a clear public use that requires just compensation, but is taking one person's private property to make it available for another's private use a public purpose? Justice John Paul Stevens says yes, arguing, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government."

TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE! TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE!

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, saying, "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public." She added that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power." In other words, state and local officials can now take your home for another private person to use so long as they can manufacture an argument that the latter use is more beneficial to the public.

TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE! TAKE SOUTER'S HOUSE!