Kelo and Prop. 90

Such was the topic at a symposium I went to today that was co-sponsored by the Chapman University Federalist Society and the Pacific Legal Foundation. Although most of the audience appeared to be anti-Kelo and pro-Prop. 90 (which I, myself, am) the 3 panels of symposium speakers were equally divided.

One of the speakers, who is a professor of law at Chapman University, made an incredibly bizarre argument in support of the majority decision in Kelo. Basically, this professor asserted that the Constitution, i.e., the 5th Amendment, does not prohibit the government from taking a person's property and giving it to another private party for their own personal profit. In light of this, Kelo was made under a strict constuctionist jurisprudence, and according to this professor, to criticize Kelo for what it allowed necessarily reflects a preference for judicial activism (which conservatives, like myself, generally disfavor and denounce).

Needless to say, I had a big eyeroll moment. Then again, seeing as how this professor had once clerked for Justice Stevens, the author of the Kelo majority opinion, I shouldn't have been very surprised to hear what I heard.

From this symposium, it seems most of the opposition to Prop. 90 is based upon a fear that it will cause all kinds of needless and costly litigation, because the initiative is allegedly poorly written. I didn't particularly find these arguments convicing, and I especially found it interesting that many of the groups who are wringing their hand in opposition to Prop. 90 were also vigorously opposed to the great and revolutionary Prop. 13.