Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.” So wrote Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, in his dissent to the recent ruling by his Court that established the legal authority of city planners to seize private property for economic development projects. The decision expands upon the practice of eminent domain which historically has been used as a way to ensure the government’s ability to acquire land for basic infrastructure such as military bases and court houses.

The case concerns a New London, Conn. planning commission that wants to build a new center of research facilities and retail space intended to revitalize the city’s sagging economy and tax base.

The plan has only one obstacle — the antiseptic-sounding Parcels 3 and 4A, whose residents are happy with their homes and want to stay. One resident, Wilhelmina Dery, was born in her home in 1918 and has lived there ever since.

Most Americans consider private property an inalienable right. Upon hearing of the plight of Dery and her neighbors, we naturally react with anger and disbelief. How could a government body, ostensibly dedicated to protecting the people, bulldoze the homes of law-abiding citizens?

The answer consists of a series of intellectual smoke screens. The first is the idea that, according to Justice Stevens’ majority opinion, “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.” Looking for the source of this alleged tradition and its acceptance, we are led in part back to the Supreme Court itself, which did much to entangle government with the economy by its unwillingness to reject New Deal legislation beginning in the late 1930s. This “tradition” certainly does not go back to the revolutionary era, when the major complaint was of too much government involvement in everyday business dealings, not too little. The government’s proper role is not to conduct business, but to secure the freedom of the people—partly through laws upholding property rights.

Given the flawed acceptance of economic development as a valid government function, however, and granting the need for the government to secure adequate resources to perform its functions, the validity of eminent domain logically follows.

If police cars, court rooms and aircraft carriers are necessary to allow the government to protect the people, so the argument goes, then tax revenue and prime real estate are necessary to allow the government to keep the economy humming.

The final step is to silence those stubborn homeowners who refuse to play along. In a country where most people almost instinctively defend basic freedom, folks like Dery cannot simply be removed — they must be conveniently forgotten. This is accomplished with the mental sleight-of-hand known as the “public good.” The trick is to forget that the “public” is simply a collection of individuals and treat it almost as a separate entity. What’s good for the whole becomes more important than the petty complaints of the few. And just like that, the planning commission in New London declares what the “public good” consists of and proceeds to pursue it with the zeal of socialist central planners.

This entire chain reaction could have been stopped by the Supreme Court.

Its response: “The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan.” Such is the fate of the right to property — no fanfare or attacks, just the simple reluctance of the Court to do its job and uphold a basic constitutional right. As Justice O’Connor properly noted in her dissent, “This is an abdication of our responsibility.” With this ruling, Dery, her cherished home and the fundamental human right to private property have all been condemned as antiquated and obsolete.

Justice Thomas is partly right about the solution. It is not merely to return to the original meaning of the words of the Constitution, as he advocates, but to rediscover and reaffirm the guiding principles on which they are based.