The Class Gap
As long as there have been politicians, they have used class warfare to their advantage. Many would rouse the lower classes in indignation of the upper classes, evoking feelings of jealousy, claiming the rich "don't deserve" their money.

One tool now used by politicians engaged in rousing class warfare is the citation of the "class gap" or noting income inequality. The claim—often used by self-proclaimed liberals in America today—is that there is a growing disparity between the "rich" and the "poor" in society. And, in fact, that is a claim I do not intend on debunking (although its veracity has not entirely been proven to me). Instead, I would more like to note that the Supreme Court of the United States has single-handedly exacerbated the class gap, and has caused us to lead down a path to a Neo-Victorian era much like the society portrayed by Charles Dickens in his various novels, or Neal Stephenson in The Diamond Age.

Any reasonable reader would then wonder how they accomplished this. After all, the decision was noted by the media, but was amazingly quickly forgotten. As well, the issue seems to have been completely ignored by the self-proclaimed liberal columnists, at least from what I can see. Indeed, the lack of publicity on the subject angers me, as I consider this issue to be of incredible importance. I am, of course, talking about Kelo v. New London.

Given the sparse coverage and glowing reviews this decision has recieved in the mainstream media, I suppose a summary is in order (for those who do not wish to actually read the court decision). The fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States states that "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This clause sets up what is called "eminent domain"; a soveriegn government may use this power to take land from people for public use. "Public use", of course, means things such as "courthouses" and "capital buildings". Effectively, it is an allowance given to the government so that it can obtain property when necessary.

The Kelo v. New London case is about the issue of eminent domain. The city of New London attempted to use the power of eminent domain to acquire land from a group of homeowners. There was, however, a catch: the land was not going to be used to build a courthouse or a capital building, but was instead going to be given to private developers to build commercial districts.

The argument was that this was part of a "development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue" (emphasis mine), and therefore, for "public purpose", which is a "broader and more natural interpretation of public use". Note that there is no actual proof that it will provide such benefits (since economics lacks a significantly clear crystal ball), so it comes down to the ridiculous adage "because I believe it will work, it must work". I consider this an incredibly poor reason to evict a group of people and build on their land.

Still, we must follow the cascade of this decision on downward to how it will affect the common person. Essentially, if a private developer is able to convince a majority of a city council that their building plan will provide "new jobs" or "increased tax revenue", then the power of eminent domain—originally granted to allow for public use—may be used, and the private developers may continue with their plan. I realize that I am inverting the conjunction from the "and" in the original decision to "or"; I am making the assumption that a well-versed legal team can argue that one leads quite naturally to the other.

But let me repeat that: if a private developer convinces a majority of a city council that their plan provides more benefit, they get the land. Think about that a second. Think about what that means.

If you guessed "the rich win", then you're right. If you guessed "bigger businesses win", then you're right. If you guessed "an increased class gap", then you see the point I'm driving towards.

Consider: money is in politics. It's a distasteful, horrible thing, but it's the unfortunate truth. It's also, therefore, an unfortunate truth that those with more money have more leaning power on government officials, and have a greater capacity to make them produce policies and/or laws that benefit those with more money. More money also means better lawyers, and—unethical as it may be—more bribe money. Er, excuse me, I suppose that should be "campaign contributions".

By connecting the dots, it's not hard to see how a large business could come into a city, "argue" that their commercial complex will generate lots of jobs and revenue for the city, and end up evicting people. Now take a wild guess as to who is more likely to be evicted. If you guessed "the poor", you're right! The matter is, of course, simple economics: the lower classes produce very little tax revenue, especially when compared to the new commercial complex that could be built.

So now the rich (and therefore powerful) can push the lower classes around, and thus, a greater disparity between the two is created. The richest will only get richer while gaining more and more land, while the poorest will only get poorer while losing more and more land.

Mind, I am not trying to say that rich people are evil in this case. Though this is certainly unethical, they are playing by the new rules of the game. We therefore need to do something about the rules of the game.

So what can we do about this egregious invasion of our rights? That is a tough question. We can produce laws and/or a constitutional amendment revoking this decision; in fact, several members of Congress have already begun such (although the media has largely decided not to mention this), and we need to support these endeavors.

Another option is to impeach the five judges who voted for it, since violating the Constitution may very well be considered bad behavior. This will never actually happen, though it is a nice pipe dream.

Although, I would like to name the judges who voted for it: John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephan G. Breyer. Notice that these are the judges typically considered "liberal"—you know, the side stereotypically concerned with the class gap.

The four judges who voted against this decision (and provided some good dissents) were William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Notice that these are the judges typically considered "conservative"—you know, the side stereotypically liking that class gap thing.

This decision can be extrapolated out so that any small business or any poor neighborhood can be razed down in preference of a bigger business or a rich neighborhood. If it reaches into patent rights, then Microsoft suddenly has the ability to put every small business (which Google once was) out of business, because that patent could make more tax revenue and be better for society as a whole in Microsoft's hands as opposed to the small business. In fact, at some point, this decision could become the backbone for an entire Neo-Victorian society where the highest eschalon controls everything by puppetting the government, and everyone below them lives in futuristic dirt and grime.

Of course, I could also be claiming the sky is falling. It's possible I am extrapolating too much from this decision. After all, the development plan was "carefully considered". As well, the decision does build on other decisions the court has made, as noted in their decision. It could be that this decision is rarely used, and that we don't devolve into the Neo-Victorian society I proclaim. In fact, I know that I am exaggerating for effect (artistic liscence at all), though exagerrations are not always so far from the truth.

Either way, I am distressed at how little attention the media has given to this case, or its aftereffects. To me, this seems like an important landmark case.

Then again, maybe it's not. After all, things have been leading up to this point, and for some odd reason, I have the gut feeling that things will get worse. Hopefully it's wrong.

I suppose only time will tell.