Glen Reynolds gets his first Shankalanche. He'll thank me later I'm sure.
-------------------
One difference is that Bowers was consistent with the law going all the
way back, while the 20th Century takings doctrines were not. As Joseph Story wrote in 1833:
It seems to be the general opinion, fortified by a strong current of judicial opinion, that since the American revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A. and transfer it to B. by a mere legislative act. A government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon a legislative body, without any restraint.
And yet that's the law now: The rights of property are left solely
dependent upon a legislative body, without any restraint. Small wonder that
it's inspiring a lot of unhappiness.
-----------
This whole thing is nuts. It's starting to make me wonder if people should be considering taking action. A daunting task considering that the airwaves are chocked with Tom Cruise's Scientology Lectures and Missing Vacationers. It's a little painful and embarassing to see so many Americans fixated on such trivial bullshit while their Constitution gets a nip and tuck. The politicians are just as bad to, arguing over who's insults are the worst instead of attacking the judicial slouch towards the Orwellian. Hello! Is this thing on?