Re: Kelo won't be reversed

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:31:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens'
decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Connecticut
constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated
public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Worst SCOTUS decision in modern history.

Well no - at some point somebody owned the land the Pentagon is built
on and while the citizens of the United States own that land, civilian
US citizens don't go there :)

Even a courthouse has stated hours in which business is done and it's
locked at other times. During business hours, the public does not have
access to offices or facilities used to hold prisoners, nor the jury
room during deliberations.

Public use and public access are not one and the same.

BTR1701 argued with me recently about the postal clause which I said
implies federal supremacy in highway design and use because he rejects
implication without explicit constitutional language, but he's disagreed
with me about Kelo since it was issued even though eminent domain is not
a delegated powera The takings clause implies the power of eminent
domain, for if the power didn't exist, there couldn't be a just
compensation requirement together with the condemnation of property.

Eminent domain is a power of the king. The federal government inherited
this power even though it's not so stated. For those who oppose Kelo,
the Constitution implies a negative taking, that the power of eminent
domain must not be used without public use regardless of just
compensation.