Replies

Yeah, we have dumbasses that elect the likes of Obama. And then we have dumbasses like John Roberts who twists language to uphold Obamacare. And then we have dumbasses like you who pretend the Constitution is being followed. The Constitution was meant to constrain the excesses of democracy, not facilitate such. Any conservative with a clue reflexively understands such from the slightest reading of the intent of the Founders.

It happens time and time again. Clear concepts are warped to get around the clear Constitutional constraints on federal power. Ex post facto application of sex offender registration is justified by saying such isn't a punishment, even though that section of the Constitution doesn't limit prohibition of ex post facto laws to punishments (and I have no problem with registration of sex offenders, just not ex post facto application of such). Obamacare is decreed to be a tax and therefore allowable as a federal law.

Sandra Day O'Conner, despite her many flaws, nailed this kind of problem in her dissent in Kelo:

In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public–such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words “for public use” do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.

[snip]

Finally, in a coda, the Court suggests that property owners should turn to the States, who may or may not choose to impose appropriate limits on economic development takings. Ante, at 19. This is an abdication of our responsibility. States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty, but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution (and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them.

[snip]

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.