But not much is really evaluated fairly in the Constitution. It's quite common for a clause, or even a few words within a sentence, to be grabbed as a justification for a particular court outcome.
That's still preferable, though, to making up imaginary words and rights.
Really? You don't think that protections against unreasonable seizures should carry weight against government takings to ensure that the takings are reasonable? Didn't Fifth Amendment takings have to first show that there weren't other reasonable alternatives for roads or building sites before a taking happened? Withouth the Fourth, one could take the first thing they saw, which is pretty much what they're doing now after Kelo.
I could see an argument in the case where there aren't other competing or influencing mentions in the Constitution, but when there are (as I believe there are in this case), then one should be balanced against the other to ensure that the interpretations are fair and consistent.
If Kelo didn't consider Fourth Amendment protections, would that be a possible avenue for a new case to give the Court a chance to reverse their Kelo ruling?
-PJ -PJ