David Harsanyi, Denver Post Staff Columnist, writes:

Once again, you have been informed that the Constitution means nothing.

After last week’s Supreme Court decision, “eminent domain” can now simply be referred to as “government-sanctioned property theft.”

“Property,” a pretty sharp guy named John Adams once said, “is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.”

To drive home the point, we have the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

When it’s not being liberally invoked by shady government officials, the Fifth Amendment also states that private property shall not be “taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Yet, by a 5-4 decision, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court ruled that government can essentially seize a person’s property - and liberty - and hand it over to an entity that happens to generate more tax revenue.

Not for “public use” mind you, but for corporate use in building condominiums, offices parks, strip malls, box stores, factories or parking lots.

“They made an interesting analysis,” explains Leslie Fields, a Denver-area eminent-domain lawyer. “They basically said public use doesn’t necessarily mean that the public has to use it, actually it means public purpose. That is a big leap.”

(By “interesting,” I’m reasonably certain Fields means extraordinarily ridiculous and destructive.)

The most ironic part, I suppose, is that left-wing justices sided with the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer against low-income families, who will now be evicted.

Are taxes now holier than liberty?

And what about those of you who are pro-business? Is this the free market?

If a massive company like Pfizer wants land, why doesn’t it buy out homeowners and small business without government bullying? Isn’t that the only way to determine “fair market value?”

Here in Colorado, we’ve already seen agencies maneuver around “just” compensation and abused eminent domain.

For instance, the RTD FasTracks project has peddled a plan to compensate property owners only a portion of their fair market value in lieu of potential appreciation.

In Sheridan, 50 or so business and property owners could be removed under eminent domain in favor of a big-box store.

Recently, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned Arvada’s effort to condemn part of Columbine Lake to build a Wal-Mart parking lot.

Is this the beginning for

Advertisement

Colorado?
An already contentious prospective “Super Slab” toll road on the Eastern Plains will rely on eminent domain.

“I can see some governmental agencies becoming emboldened by this,” explains Fields, “but in Colorado we have some protection, we have statutes that basically say you can only condemn when a property is blighted.”

But what is blight?

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her somewhat aggravated and dead-on dissent that with “the banner of economic development” all private property is susceptible - anything can be blight.

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property,” O’Connor added. “Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out the logical double-standard in protecting homes from search and seizure but not from demolition.

So why does a majority of the court ignore this reasoning, this constitutional standard?

It’s possible, but exceedingly doubtful, that we can persuade Colorado’s congressional delegation to stop scoring political points - forget about needless flag-burning amendments or wishful thinking about the Downing Street Memo - and start worrying about the erosions of our fundamental constitutional rights.

As always, if you care, pester them here: www.congress.org.

David Harsanyi’s column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at or .