And here I thought you were a 10th Amendment guy. So that was nothing but a fraud as well? Not at all surprising.
You thought Kelo v New London was a good decision by the Supreme court? What are you, nuts?
Kelo v New London was about a city seizing land from one owner and giving it to a business, but not for any Civic or Municiple minded purpose, but instead to "develop" it financially and make a profit.
Eminent Domain is legitimate only if the property seized is for a necessary government service in support of the community.
Kelo was a bad decision, and I can't believe you are citing that and objecting to it's inclusion in a list of very bad supreme court decisions.
For anyone with respect for the U.S. Constitution in general and the 10th Amendment in particular, yes. So that excludes you right off the bat.
In the Kelo decision the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state could use eminent domain to take the property for urban renewal reasons or whatever. Now we can debate all day over the logic behind the state court's decision, and likely agree, but what the U.S. Supreme Court did was to refuse to overrule the state Supreme Court. And I would defy you to show me where in the Constitution the federal government has the right to tell a state what they can use eminent domain for. So clearly it was a 10th Amendment issue and the Supreme Court upheld that. Right or wrong it was the state's decision to make and not the federal governments right to overturn it.
Or maybe you would have it otherwise? Maybe you want the federal government to tell states when they can use eminent domain and when they can't? States like Texas have strict restrictions on what eminent domain can be used for; but obviously you think the feds should step in and tell them whether they are right in that or wrong. I've suspected all along that your claimed support for the Constitution was a sham. Thanks for confirming it.