"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

As an offshoot of While Evils are Sufferable, I had a exchange with blogger Patton of Opinion8 in the comments to Buckethead's piece Second Civil War at The Ministry of Minor Perfidy. One topic we touched on, briefly, was the abuse of Eminent Domain.

Well, Patton linked to this George Will piece on one glaring example of that abuse: Do we have a right to our property -- or not? Excerpt:

Soon -- perhaps on the first Monday in October -- the (U.S. Supreme) court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4-3 ruling last March by Connecticut's Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term ``despotism'' exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.

That city, like many cities, needs more revenues. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company's $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corporation, to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim is to make space for upscale condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenues than can be extracted from the neighborhood's middle-class homeowners.

The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property -- a home, a business -- and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth? Connecticut's court says yes, which turns the Fifth Amendment from a protection of the individual against overbearing government into a license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's strongest interests. Henceforth, what home or business will be safe from grasping governments pursuing their own convenience?

This should be interesting.