If enough furor, most states will slam a lid on this. But what to do about Uncle Sam?
Ugh. I don't even wanna think about it. But read the Preamble to the Constitution. I think its authors meant for it to be re-read and acted upon when/if the Constitution itself were to be so twisted as it is today.
Amazingly Applicable Trivia: It only took 92 years for the Gubmint to legalize the completely legal State seizure of any property. The Federal Government, in 1913, applied the 16th Amendment (which some, to this day, will swear was never properly ratified; but no matter...) to begin seizing property in the form of income. In 2005, the Legal work completed with the SCOTUS' nullification of Takings Clause stated in the 5th Amendment now enables government to seize real property with the flimsiest of excuses.
All they now need is a municipal official to round up the needed political support, and your property no longer belongs to you, for any purpose as long as it can be called "improvement". You don't have to violate any laws to be a target ... it's that simple. Just breathe. Work hard all your life. Save and acquire property. Or, God forbid, hold an inflammatory political opinion. Where's the offense here?
"America: Land of decree, home of the slave"
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
From Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion,
The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the property, as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever. At the time of the founding, dictionaries primarily defined the noun “use” as “[t]he act of employing any thing to any purpose.” 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary ofthe English Language 2194 (4th ed. 1773) (hereinafter Johnson). The term “use,” moreover, “is from the Latin utor, which means ‘to use, make use of, avail one’s self of, employ, apply, enjoy, etc.” J. Lewis, Law of Eminent Domain §165, p. 224, n. 4 (1888) (hereinafter Lewis). When the government takes property and gives it to a private individual, and the public has no right to use the property, it strains language to say that the public is “employing” the property, regardless of the incidental benefits that might accrue to the public from the private use. The term “public use,” then, means that either the government or its citizens as a whole must actually “employ” the taken property. See id., at 223 (reviewing found-ing-era dictionaries).
Justice Thomas believes that words mean something. The majority on the court just changed the definition of "public use" to "any public purpose".
It is just like they long ago changed the freedom of speech (oral) and of the press (written) to include expressions which are neither oral or written. Burning the flag is now considered protected free speech. Is self-immolation far behind? And if so, what about the suicide bomber? Is that protected free speech?
The Constitution is not a living document, it is a written document. To uphold the Constitution is to retain the meaning of the written word.