That’s a GOOD question — but a LOADED one. :-)
First, in Kelo v. New London (2005), I think the Supreme Court WAY overstepped it’s bounds in allowing ANY Governmental entity (Municipal, State or Federal) TAKE from one PRIVATE concern and transfer it to ANOTHER PRIVATE concern for the sake of “economic growth.” The SCOTUS SAID that this was allowable under the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment, which allows the GOVERNMENT to take something for “PUBLIC USE.” That was NOT the case here. The Government decided WHICH PRIVATE use was best FOR the Government. That’s both a DISTORTION of the Constitution and just plain BAD LAW. It is completely outside anything the Founders would EVER have envisioned for the Fifth Amendment — and it should be overturned. Incidentally, many States have now passed laws FORBIDDING this practice by both State and Municipal governments....
As to McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) — Chicago had made firearms laws forbidding possession of handguns and restricting long guns or various sorts (I believe that’s right), and SCOTUS said that Chicago was forbidden to do that because, under the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the States (and municipalities, presumably) they were forbidden to place restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights. I don’t necessarily like the reasoning (the 14th Amendment has a problematic history and is a ‘Pandora’s box’ of Constitutional havoc), I do think the correct decision was made. I think, however, the argument may best have been made at the State Level — though in this case, the SCOTUS got the decision “right.”
I think you badly misstate the facts of the case. What the Supreme Court did was uphold the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court, which was the one which said that the New London could use eminent domain to acquire private property for whatever they defined as the public good. And isn't that what you are advocating? That states should have the right to make their own decisions on how to run their own affairs free from restrictions placed on them by the federal government? Now we can dispute the wisdom of the lower court decision all we want, but you of all people should be cheering on the Kelo decision. The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to step in and impose a solution on the people of one of the sovereign states, and they refused. They allowed Connecticut the freedom to run their own show, for better or worse. And isn't that what you are advocating?
I don’t necessarily like the reasoning (the 14th Amendment has a problematic history and is a ‘Pandora’s box’ of Constitutional havoc), I do think the correct decision was made.
In other words, a tyrannical and overbearing government in DC told Illinois and the city of Chicago what they could or could not do. Again, we can argue the underlying merits of the case but at the end of the day a state went their own way and decided that they wanted to place restrictions on gun ownership. And the federal government in the form of the Supreme Court said that they couldn't do it. A solution was imposed on them by D.C. How can you support that?