Editorials

I do not know if I did this correctly but here goes:

Justices Amended Constitution on Their own Editorial

The main debate in this editorial is property rights. In this editorial the case of Kelo is basically saying that taking his property in order to build another piece of property for public use is acceptable. The common belief is that liberals are anti property rights and conservatives try to maintain property rights. The word “public uses” was used consistently and this phrase makes an identification that public use is a good thing. It is obvious that the conservatives are outraged by this decision. Such words that point to this are: “just compensation”; “it will pass unjustly to private developers.” O’conner says that economical development takings are unconstitutional.” Thomas even thinks that this decision has erased the Public Use Clause in the Constitution. Conservatives believe that what a person owns should not be easily taken away from them.


By Letting Redevelopers Take Little Guy’s Property Editorial

“The underlying liberal vision was that private property was the instrument of individuals privilege and power, which had to be cut down to size by an alert legislature that had the interests of the little man at heart.” Another sentence that argues for liberals is, “It is necessary to allow developers to assemble large parcels of land for major developments.” This article is still about conservatives trying to argue that what the liberals are doing with property rights is wrong.


More Than Abortion is at Stake in Supreme Court Picks

This editorial argues how property and state rights seem to have more value than individual rights. The main individual right they argue about in this piece is abortion. People are outraged that court justices that are all on one side or oppose a certain side should not be elected. There should be a variety of court justices who are fair to all sides. “President Bush has picked lawyers and judges who favor a pre-New Deal approach to the constitution” clearly gives a hint that Bushes ideas are conservative, and that it is liberals who believe protecting individual rights is more important that what conservatives call important or not. The article then gives examples of court decisions if their was only one side (the conservative side). The article is definitely against conservative views.


Losing Our Country

The writer is against the problem of inequality between classes. He is taking on the view of a liberal. He says that since 1980 the government has favored the wealthy at the expense of working families… and favoritism has become extreme and relentless. This shows that Krugman is against favoritism. Another phrase, “From tax cuts that favor the rich to bankruptcy “reform” that punishes the unlucky.” He says that it is not a pretty picture in this piece. The conservatives try to cover up this favoritism by changing data to mislead. This must mean that he thinks the other party is misleading. He refers to these people as partisans.