[jim_trent]

"Since yesterday:
* any land can be transfered to another private owner without the need to condemn it first if it is for the "greater good" (yeah, that's specific)"

The case says no such thing. Read it before posting again.

[jwalsh07]

And the Constitituion specifically limits governments power to take private property. The property must be for public use, not some commie crap public good or for the "general welfare" which the founders used elsewhere in the Constitution and certainly not to line the pockets of Joe Pol and his deep pocket buddies.

Yesterdays holding distorts the original meaning of the "takings clause" and the "public use" clause to a point where they don't meany anything except what pols and judges say they mean. It is you who doesn't understand the holding in Kelo.

[HEY4QDEMS]

any land can be transfered to another private owner without the need to condemn it first if it is for the "greater good" (yeah, that's specific)"

The case says no such thing. Read it before posting again.

Actually the case says that private land can be seized by the government for private development if the government can prove that such action will serve the greater good.

I'd say that kpp_kpp was close enough, you're being just a little bit anal IMO.

[kpp_kpp]

my general statement is accurate according to the decision and dissent which i read.

my point was the the difference between before and after yesterday is the need to condemn propery before transfering to another private owner for development.