Will Grigg exposes how one of New London Connecticut’s “finest public servants” injured himself carrying a middle-aged woman, who was protesting the impending lose of her house to “progress,” off her property. Grigg also reveals something I had not been aware of, the New London Development Corporation, the entry taking the property at issue in the infamous Kelo case, received federal taxpayer funds for their “development” activities.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of whether the Supreme Court, or any other part of the federal government, should restrict the taking of private property by state and/or local officials when federal funds are not involved, it seems reasonable to require the recipients of federal funds to abide by the “takings” clause of the fifth amendment. For one thing, some of the funds being used to subsidize the takings in New London may have come from the federal taxes of those whose property is being stolen by the New London Development Corporation. Furthermore, allowing the recipients of federal funds to violate constitutional rights could open a loophole allowing the federal government to get around the restraints of the Bill of Rights by “contracting out” government functions, such as taking property for private developments, or torturing “enemy combatants” to private entities or other levels of government. I believe that some concerns have already been raised that the “private” agencies the IRS is considering contracting with will not be required to abide by even the modest due process protections the IRS is forced to grant taxpayers.

If local officials find it to onerous to comply with the restrictions on their activities imposed by the takings clause, they can always refuse federal funds, and if federal contractors find it to burdensome to respect individual rights they can always go out and earn an honest living.