Based on my (admittedly brief) review of his opinion in this case he determined it to be a "micro" rather than a "macro" issue regarding constitionality, inasmuch as the COTUS prevents federal intervention into (most local) issues, however leaves powers vested in the states (and communities).......since this was essentially a community issue, he determined that New London's actions were "constitutional" in the strictest sense of the term.
Their (New London's) motivations for taking this action is where the disagreement entered the fray, he broadly remained above that........whichever side of this issue you come down on personally, he basically punted constitutionally, and it's hard to argue with his logic.
Since this decision, a flurry of state statutes have been passed to prevent such actions, and in his view, this is where the responsibility really lies to regulate such activities.
doc
Wouldn't that, in itself, be unconstitutional? Say a state or city comes in and wants to condemn my property and give it to a private investment firm that wants to build a shopping mall, giving the state and/or city more tax revenue than I would give. I bring up the 4th Amendment which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
and tell them it's illegal for them to seize my property. When they ask on what constitutional basis I'm making my argument for using the 4th Amendment, I bring up the 5th Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
and since this isn't "for public use", they have no basis. Will they say, "Oh, well it's not the federal government doing it, it's the state or local government doing it. Hmm, Ok, well how about Article VI, Section 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Which states the US Constitution overrides any state Constitution when the two conflict.
I think that was one of the most disastrous rulings in the past 50 years. It did more to harm individual freedom than any other ruling in the past. Without the right to private property, there is no freedom.
