<p>I don’t want to get in the middle of this, but as I recall it from school, the Fifth Amendment recognizes the power of eminent domain, by requiring just compensation for the taking of private property for “public use”. The definition of public use in has become increasingly expansive as the Supreme Court has interpreted the power. The 14th Amendment has been used to apply the power to the states.</p>
<p>fredmar, thank you - shows columbia2002 is also a hypocrite </p>
<p>hahalolk, dont take everything so literally. I meant used to further a compelling interest or something like that, and in this case, its to further higher education.</p>
<p>In any case, it wasn’t simply between Columbia and the company; or even new york; the supreme court was involved and ruled in favor of higher education.</p>
<p>You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of cluelessness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, the US Supreme Court elected not to hear the case, which they do 98-99% of the time they are asked to hear a case, so nothing was “tried in the Supreme Court.” Second, stop trying to sound smart by saying things like “breeches past a local dispute.” You’re really not making any point at all, and you are merely demonstrating your ignorance of the fact that local disputes implicating constitutional rights arise on a daily basis in towns all across America.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Used” not “use” – learn English. Eminent domain should be used for public uses – infrastructure as you say, like roads, schools, etc. It shouldn’t be used to give one private party’s land to another private party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, you don’t get the difference between the state and federal government. Article 1 of the Constitution is about the powers of Congress. You tried to sound impressive by talking about what “Article 1” lets Congress do to justify the State of New York’s actions here. Moreover, you lack an understanding as to why your professor was likely saying what he did – he was making a point about federalism to explain that the federal government (and not just a state government) has an eminent domain power, a fact that was not recognized until almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is entirely correct. Public use now means “private use for some possible public purpose.” The Supreme Court latest 5-4 decision with respect to the public use clause was met with incredible backlash from the public, and numerous states have reacted by increasing state constitutional protections against the use of eminent domain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you know what a hypocrite is? I think you’re aiming for something like “an idiot.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clearly you don’t understand the difference between a litigant and a court. Litigants sue each other. Courts decide who wins when litigants sue each other. The case was between the victims and New York. A court is always involved when somebody sues someone else.</p>
<p>And I said before, the US Supreme Court declined to get involved and didn’t rule in favor of anyone.</p>