"Remember, folks: the strict constructionist view is that the Constitution applies to the federal government, not to the states. The feds can't do this, but the states can unless the state constitution says otherwise."
No, for a strict constructionist, one would have to also note the amendments and the debate surrounding them. Using that criteria, the 14th trumped the intent of the founders and the intent of the drafters of the 14th was to incorporate the bill of rights into state law.
Precisely.
"No, for a strict constructionist, one would have to also note the amendments and the debate surrounding them. Using that criteria, the 14th trumped the intent of the founders and the intent of the drafters of the 14th was to incorporate the bill of rights into state law."
Fair enough.
And the original intent of the Founders was that the Supreme Court would interpret these things (see The Federalist Papers), and it did. Just as the Federal government condemned property to give the large land grants to the railroads, untrammelled by any pre-existing claims, the states can choose to do what they are doing here.
It stinks, but the solution is legal and political, not constitutional. Pass a law, or amend state constitutions, so that cities and states can't do this. Until that happens, they can. THe Supreme Court says so, so there's no recourse to federal court.