They got what they wanted, why are they complaining?

Okay, this post might be a bit untimely, but I've been wanting to speak out about Kelo v. New London for awhile. This decision is pretty close to universally despised, among not only conservatives but liberals as well. And to those liberals, I ask: What are you complaining about? This is what you wanted, isn't it? This is what you've been asking for all these years, right? Are you surprised that what you got doesn't look like what you thought you'd get? Well, don't say we didn't warn you. Kelo is a liberal decision through and through.

The decision is so blatantly bad, so insanely left-wing, so anti-capitalist and anti-freedom that even Maxine Waters opposed it. Only extremely, extremely radical liberal organizations like the editorial page of the New York Times could support it. Nancy Pelosi weakly defended it saying that the ruling was "almost as if God has spoken", as if the Supreme Court has never ruled in error. DU half-heartedly tried to excuse liberals from the responsibility for the travesty by noting that seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans, as if the fact that they were nominated by Republicans somehow makes Stevens and Souter less liberal, as if the only two Democratic nominees weren't part of the core liberal group of Justices who inflicted this upon us.

But this was a perfectly liberal decision. All you fans of Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (don't feel bad, I had to look it up too) should express no shock at Kelo v. New London. It fits right in with the rest. It is left-wing. It is downright socialist.

Don't see it? Well, follow me. Governments, including ours, have always had the power to condemn and repurpose property in certain circumstances. Way back in caveman days, Ug thwocked Throgg (1) with his newly-invented flint axe and took his cave and his woman, building a territory and becoming a tribal leader in this way. In more civilized times, the local baron would decide to add your fields to his own. In more civilized times still, the government might decide to build a highway through your home. Because we are civilized, we pay what's considered fair compensation in these cases. We also, as Americans, have a Constitutional right to our property, a promise that the government makes to us in the Fifth Amendment:

"Private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Seems pretty cut-and-dried, doesn't it? The language is pretty clear? It's obvious what the drafters intended?

Well, I'm afraid that's not good enough. You see, you liberals have gone ahead and destroyed the value of plain meaning. The Constitution, you say, is a "living document". It's the job of Justices, you insist, to "interpret" the Constitution, where "interpret" is not necessarily followed by "in a manner consistent with the text or the intent." That's what happened in Roe. That's what happened in Lawrence. That's most definitely what happened in Goodridge. And that's what happened in Kelo. So you who cheered these decisions have no right to whine now. You followed your good intentions right to hell; you've made your bed and now we all have to lie in it. He who lives by "interpretation" dies by "interpretation".

But the mere act of desecrating the plain meaning of the Constitution isn't all that makes Kelo a liberal decision. The particular interpretation itself is also liberal. How? Let's see.

Well, the first key "interpretation" in Kelo is that "public use" doesn't really mean "public use" but "for a public purpose". If it serves the public good, it's a public use... sounds pretty darned liberal to me. So it doesn't matter if you're condemning the property for a park that will be open to all, or a private office building that has specific regulations (including the banning of Taco Bells) designed to inhibit public visits. (Enjoying your new digs, New York Times? (2))

But the more important question is "What constitutes a public purpose?" After all, the government can't just go around taking your property for no reason, right? A corrupt councilman can't legally take your house and just give it to his buddy, can he? No, of course not. There has to be a public purpose. And the Supreme Court's liberal majority ruled in Kelo that a public purpose is served if the proposed taking would mean that the government collects more money.

Conservatives heed the repeated warnings of our most distinguished founding fathers not to trust the government. Government, they warned us, is a necessary evil. Fear your government. Keep it small, keep it constrained, do not give it any more power than strictly necessary for it to achieve its minimalist mission, or you will regret it. That's the conservative position. And that's the government the founders gave us in their written Constitution. The liberal position is that the government is the people. The government exists to be the people's benevolent master, righting the wrongs and helping the helpless, and it's okay for the government to be the master because the government and the people are equated. The government's money is the people's money, so increased government revenue is automatically a public good, increasing revenue is therefore a public purpose, and property that is forcibly repurposed to increase revenue is taken for a public use. Behold the glory of socialism.

So liberals, quit bitching about Kelo. If you don't like where the "living document" doctrine leads, if you don't enjoy the natural consequence of exalting The People^TM over the individual, well, we told you so.

A postscript on the Kelo matter. The city of New London has told Suzette Kelo et al that they owe rent for occupying the city's properly-seized property since 2000. Also, the "just compensation" to which they are legally entitled will be based on the 2000 market value, when as you may recall real estate prices were a wee bit lower than they are now. There's no way the unfortunate evictees will be able to purchase new houses with their settlements, especially after deducting tens of thousands of dollars in rent. Were this a simpler time, we would see a railcar departing New London containing the tarred-and-feathered bodies of the city council.

(1) Why do cavemen always have names like this? For all we know, they called each other Mortimer and Bruce.

(2) The first, and quite possibly last and only time I will link favorably to the Village Voice.