No, the actual "public use" of Kelo was a projection (read imagining) of "increased taxes." It certainly was an imagining as the private entity which it was to be given to -to develop- was never developed, therefore the entire justification was and remains a nullity, this is independent of whether turning it over to a private entity for development actually is "public use."
Government “imagines” nothing[,] representatives of the people write the laws.
Really? Then explain how the commerce clause, embedded in a list containing foreign countries and Indian Nations, can logically enable the the sort of interstate regulation that is claimed as legitimate by the federal government, considering that the imposition of such restraints upon foreign countries as are placed upon our States are legitimately Acts of Ware (especially if the US tried to enforce such).
Please explain how the Supreme Court can nullify State laws, contrary to the 10th Amendment, which themselves was affirmative of the 14th Amendment: specifically Roe v. Wade.
Please explain how the police have no obligation to protect a [private] citizen (Castle Rock v. Gonzales), yet that private citizen may be compelled to appear in a court, and be disarmed, despite not even being accused of a crime. (That is, jurors and witnesses.)
Only a truly sick mind can justify these.
Wow you really don’t understand these matters at all, do you?
Your first paragraph makes not sense.
States are part of a Union not sovereign states. They never really were even under the Articles. So there is nothing which would compare to an “act of ware (sic)” with sovereign nations.
Where does the idea that the 10th amendment changes the fact that the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land come from? The only reason the amendment is even there (as far as its practical purpose has been so far) is as a rhetorical sop to the anti-Federalists.
Are you asking me why jurors are forced to come to court disarmed?