Head-scratching decisions

Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have created quite a national reaction, both because of the fundamental democratic principles involved and because they leave so much up in the air.

The court's decision on eminent domain -- the right of government to forcibly take private property when there is a compelling public benefit and when property owners are given due process and fair compensation -- was something of a wake-up call for many Americans. Overwhelmingly, the reaction to this decision has been negative. Most Americans believe private property rights are sacred, which they are, and see this decision as an assault on those rights.

Taking property

Eminent domain, however, has always been a useful tool, mainly for public-works projects that are viewed as essential to better highways and other government-built infrastructure. What has so many people upset with this latest decision is the notion that government can use eminent domain to take property that will benefit both the government, through economic development and increased tax revenue, and private developers who put up the capital to build these projects.

Gov. Matt Blunt has already announced a task force to look into Missouri's eminent domain laws. Currently, governmental entities in the state are permitted to take actions sanctioned by the Supreme Court ruling. However, states can impose tighter controls if they so desire.

Displaying the commandments

The other rulings that have generated so much comment are the two decisions, given on the same day, regarding the Ten Commandments. In narrow opinions in both cases, the court said a monument outside the Texas Capitol is OK because it "suggests little or nothing of the sacred," while framed copies of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses are not permitted because their purpose is to promote religion.

These are fine legal distinctions -- so fine that most Americans are having considerable difficulty understanding them. To must of us, the Ten Commandments either should or should not be displayed on public property. Some Americans believe they are the underpinning of our justice system and, therefore, can be appropriately displayed at courthouses. Others believe America's religious foundations warrant public display of the commandments. Still others believe the wall between church and state clearly prohibits public displays for any reason, leaving the promulgation of these religious tenets to churches.

Sadly, the fallout of these decisions is to further erode the public's confidence in the nation's highest court. Our three-pronged system of government relies as heavily on the judiciary as it does the legislative and executive branches. If one branch weakens, however, the whole tree suffers.