And so it begins

Two big political news items today.

First up, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her impending retirement. In her short statement to President Bush she said she would, "retire from my position as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor." It will be interesting to see who President Bush nominates as her successor and whether or not the so-called "nuclear/constitutional option" is exercised when Senate Democrats inevitably threaten to filibuster his or her confirmation. Justice O'Connor is considered a "swing vote" on the court and, if a constitutional constructionist were to be appointed and confirmed, the court's track would probably steer to the conservative side.

In other, somewhat related news, the US Congress is acting to blunt the recent egregious Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain and property rights (in which Justice O'Connor dissented, by the way). In the aftermath of the Kelo decision, the House passed an amendment to the Treasury/Transportation spending bill.

With growing bipartisan support, the House voted for a piece of legislation that could undo the impact of the Supreme Court decision. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., would cut off federal funding to any governmental entity that uses the expanded eminent domain power to take land for economic development projects. Congress has used this approach before.

Next up: The Senate.

The measure will be offered in the Senate by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"We will be working together to accomplish our goal ... to reign back in this broad interpretation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in a way that protects all of us from the awesome power of government to take private property for private uses," Cornyn said.

Democrats are split on the issue:

Though Republicans have pushed the amendment, key Democrats like Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Maxine Waters of California have signed on as co-sponsors. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., lined up against the measure.

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said.

That's exactly the point, those in Congress upset by the Supreme Court decision say. They say they believe very few state and local governments would be willing to risk losing federal funding in order to help a developer finance a private project.

You ask me, the Federal government doesn't have any business giving any such funds to state and local governments in the first place. Nevertheless, anything the Federal government can do to protect property rights is probably a good thing. That is, after all, one of it's Constitutionally-specified primary functions, unlike so much else that it does. I would like to see a new amendment to the Constitution that expands and clarifies the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Perhaps something along the lines of:

No government at any level shall have the power to take private property for public use without providing just compensation. Public use is defined as <insert appropriate definition here, emphasising the words "public use" as opposed to "public benefit," "public interest," "economic development," etc.>. Under no circumstances shall any government take property from a private individual or entity and then give it or sell it to another private individual or entity.