If this doesn't scare you, you're not paying attention.

Yesterday the US Supreme Court stole your home. They held that a city can condemn private property, take it away from the owner, and give it to another private entity for economic development.

So, I decide I want to build an office building right where your house is. I go down to the Civic Center, convince Mayor Gray and Manager Lawton that it will mean jobs and economic growth, and the Supreme Court's decision allows them to start the process to take it away.

Now, I am not a condemnation lawyer, but according to the Montana statute, eminent domain can be exercised for "all public uses authorized by the government of the United States." Someone surely can and will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the Supreme Court's decision is that it broadened the definition of the term "public use" to include any "public purpose." In other words, if the government can show a benefit such as increased jobs or tax revenues, they can take your land.

By the way, the majority who wrote this decision was the liberal wing of the Court. So, the liberals, the defenders of the little guy, have ruled that that same little guy's house can be taken away and given to rich property developers. Now can you start to see some cracks in the collectivist logic?

Update: The Tribune's sidebar to this story claims that eminent domain is prohibited in Montana for purposes of economic development, unless the area condemned is blighted. I'll try to do more research on this issue this weekend. For now, I have to go to work.