If you think that anything close to 1/3 of our current population would support a revolution over the issue of eminent domain, you need to think again. You might interest .5%, but that would be a stretch, I think.
Talk of revolution over this issue is simply nonsense, especially since there are legal remedies that are much easier.
Let's say a state has an element in its consitution that prohibits eminent domain from being used to take any property for the use of any private enterprise. This SCOTUS ruling has nothing to say about that.
Does your state have such an element? No? Then there's your fight. Make it happen.
How about your city? Do they have an ordinance prohibiting such uses of eminent domain? No? There's another battle for you. Your County? Same thing.
It's a lot easier to get people to move in this way over an issue like this one than it is to get them to take up arms, don't you think?
If this were the only issue where the government was broken you'd have a point.
Think you that "revolution" is only a thing of violence?
FYI and to show other people that there are political remedies. (You are filled with common sense) :-) -
The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that local and state governments may not seize private property under their eminent domain power and give it to another private user.
In other words, the local government can’t take your home, land or business and give it to a strip mall, a car dealership, a high-tech company or any other private property owner.
The unanimous ruling on July 30, 2004 returned common sense to private property ownership, reined in political hacks stealing property to reward friends or well-heeled connections and built a clear wall between the legal concepts of private property and public use.
“We overrule Poletown,” the Court wrote, “in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people’s property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law.”
This statement indicates that Michigan’s highest court has rediscovered its constitutional and traditional role as interpreter of law, not creative writer of law.