pageok
pageok
pageok
Panel on Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform:

As part of this year's 10th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference in New York City, I have organized a panel on post-Kelo eminent domain reform. The panel will be held on Friday at 9:00-10:45 AM, in the Tansa Room of the Parker Meridien Hotel (118 W. 57th St.). Participants include prominent eminent domain scholars such as James Ely (Vanderbilt), David Dana (Northwestern), Daniel Kelly (a visiting fellow at Yale), and my colleague Steve Eagle. I'm not going to be officially participating myself, but will be present as the panel organizer. The participants' papers, along with contributions by Richard Epstein and Andrew Morriss, will be published in an upcoming symposium in the Supreme Court Economic Review, edited by co-blogger Todd Zywicki and myself.

As I discuss in more detail in this paper, over 40 states, as well as the federal government, have passed eminent domain reform laws since the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London. There has been more legislative reaction against Kelo than any other Supreme Court decision of at least the last 35 years. So if you're going to be at the AALS conference and have an interest in property law, eminent domain, or the political impact of Supreme Court decisions, try not to miss this panel. I hope to see you there.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Panel on Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform:
  2. Upcoming Panel on Executive Power:
Don Hamrick` (mail) (www):
UPDATE TO YOUR: Constitution for the State of New Columbia (District of Columbia)

THE UPDATE: H.R. 1858 District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act' April 16, 2007

Instead of the Constitution for the State of New Columbia, H.R. 1858 District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act' April 16, 2007 is proposed "To provide for the retrocession of the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, and for other purposes."

ABOUT THE POST-KELO EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM:

Why not include Non-Physical takings, i.e., excessive constriction on the Bill of Rights in general, namely the Right to Petition clause is being attacked by all three branches of the federal government as I show in the following two links:

Congress is Killing the First Amendment Right to Petition

Incidental, the Second Amendment can be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment by adding a data field to the National Drivers Record. See glocktalk.com link above.

Human Rights Amendment in Defense of the Second Amendmen
1.2.2008 1:56am
tvk:
I assume the comparison you are thinking of is Furman v. Georgia (1972). Roe v. Wade (1973), at 34 years old, will probably give Kelo a run for its money on legislative backlash.
1.2.2008 2:10am
Ilya Somin:
I assume the comparison you are thinking of is Furman v. Georgia (1972). Roe v. Wade (1973), at 34 years old, will probably give Kelo a run for its money on legislative backlash.

Yes, Furman is indeed the relevant comparison. Roe did not result in nearly as much counterlegislation as Kelo and about half or more of the public approves of Roe in most polls, which certainly can't be said of Kelo.
1.2.2008 2:13am
SupremacyClaus (mail) (www):
In its 124 uses of the word, property, in Kelo, not once did the Court use the adjective, real. Does Kelo apply to chattel?

If it does, then it applies to corpses. This decision could end the shortage of organ donations. It would affirm presumed consent.
1.2.2008 2:55am
Ilya Somin:
In its 124 uses of the word, property, in Kelo, not once did the Court use the adjective, real. Does Kelo apply to chattel?

I would assume so, yes. The Court's takings jurisprudence usually treats real and personal property the same except in rare cases where they specifically state a distinction.
1.2.2008 3:23am
Stu Rees (mail) (www):
I've done six takings jurisprudence cartoons on the following cases:
- Kelo v. New London
- Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
- Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington
- Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
-Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
-Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York
1.2.2008 9:44am
Eli Rabett (www):
This is exactly what the court asked for. They said that given current laws (or the lack of them) they had to rule against Kelo, but that, please, please, the states could pass laws to regulate such takings.

In the short run, you have to admit that the Supreme Court was very successful
1.2.2008 6:06pm