If I have understood what I have learned on these threads, I'm not a lawyer, Kelo said the Constitution barred the Federal Government from taking property, States in their own Constitutions may do the same.
This is why I have always blamed the voters of New London for being first class jerks, by electing thieves into office.
It’s your typical liberal effort to further undermine the Constitution. What’s actually the most amazing part is that they were able to find a part of the Constitution which they had not already undermined.
Connecticut's voters set themselves up for Kelo v. by failing to establish clear guidelines regarding reasons for "takings".
What is noteworthy is the fundamental issue at stake in Kelo was that faced by King Joab when his wife recommended that he just steal his neighbor's best gardens. This was addressed earlier by King Hammurabi in his code - and his solution was to EXECUTE anyone who used government power to "take" property for private use.
Amazingly Ruth Bader Ginzburg appears to have been allowed by her parents to have missed Hebrew School on the Sunday when King Joab's plight was discussed or she'd given the matter more thought.
Most folks had not imagined that the legal principles behind the Fifth Amendment could be construed in a way that allowed government agents to steal land from a poor man to give it to a rich man!