[flada]

Not to quibble over fine details, but it's actually the 4th Amendment that prohibits the seizing of private property. The 5th prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation, without making any mention of the taking of private property for private use.

However none of this has stopped the government from taking your private property and redistributing it to other private citizens in the form of welfare and other socialist schemes. I'm equally outraged by these violations of our 4th and 5th Amendment protections--have been for many years.

[tumblindice]

http://www.usconstitution/net/const.html

The "liberal" justices are responsible for this decision that allows developers to take the homes of people who work for a living, but the kool-aid drinkers will continue their drum-beat that conservatives are grinding their heels into the faces of the working class, blah blah blah.
Also, you'll hear a lot about how the states should pass legislation protecting homeowners. . . won't work. All a grifting developer has to do is appeal, invoke Kelo (stare decisis) and the 14th amendment. (Then write some more checks.)
Next time a "liberal" pulls that "We're the party of the People!" bull on you, two word response: eminent domain.

[Political Junkie Too]

Not to quibble over fine details, but it's actually the 4th Amendment that prohibits the seizing of private property.

Wasn't this the basis for one of Thomas' complaints, namely, that the security of your possessions WITHIN your house is protected, but the house itself is not anymore?

-PJ