[muawiyah]

The problem in Kelo was CONNECTICUT. The “Takings Clause” in the Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Most of the states have a comparable clause in their own constitutions. Connecticut does not.

[OneWingedShark]

The problem in Kelo was CONNECTICUT. The “Takings Clause” in the Fifth Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Most of the states have a comparable clause in their own constitutions. Connecticut does not.

I disagree; the problem with Kelo was allowing imagination* of greater tax-revenue to be valid as the justification-of eminent domain and as qualifying for the "public use" portion of the 5th Amendment.

* Really "projection" but it must be emphasized that the numbers have no basis in reality as the land seized was never developed and therefore never generated any increased tax-revenue.

[Defiant]

The takings clause applies to the states, too, since 1897.