[snowrip]

Don’t ever attempt to put words in my mouth.

The “just compensation” portion of the Fifth is 20% of the Amendment. Your definition of “public use” apparently applies to private development as well. How progressive of you.

Your stripes are showing, again.

[muawiyah]

The issue at stake in the case was "public use". The claim on one side was that "public use" should not involve condemnation for the purpose of grouping subdivided blocks of property for sale to a private entity ~ WITHOUT A FINDING that the property to be condemned was a hopeless slum (although there's a technical word for that, but think DETROIT).

The other side ~ the Gub'mnt ~ said that since more tax money could be derived from the improved property this was a good public purpose being served.

Now you want to tell me that the issue in Connecticut in Kelo was about "just compensation" ~ when, in fact, it was actually about whether or not the land taken was a slum.

CT said they could take property, and pay for it, whether it was a slum or not.

In these debates both sides should stick to the facts of the case at law ~ maybe it might have a different outcome if other things were true, but that wasn't the case.

The USSC said "DO IT" ~ and the people of CT have yet to act to change their own law. Other states have changed their laws.

So, wow man, you don't like democratic processes used in government or the Tenth Amendment and you want to tell me I'm not conservative enough for your taste?

You are way off base.