[DoodleDawg]

That you can use the power of Imminent Domain to seize the property of one person and give it to another. You don't find that objectionable?

The court that ruled that the state had the power to use eminent domain to take the proprty was the Connecticut Supreme Court. All the U.S. Supreme Court did was uphold their decision. Now we can argue if the state court decision was proper all we want, but for someone who claims to be a 10th Amendment supporter then I would think you would be completely in favor of the Kelo decision.

Or are you saying there are limits to what states can be trusted with in regards to 10th Amendment powers?

[DiogenesLamp]

The court that ruled that the state had the power to use eminent domain to take the proprty was the Connecticut Supreme Court. All the U.S. Supreme Court did was uphold their decision. Now we can argue if the state court decision was proper all we want, but for someone who claims to be a 10th Amendment supporter then I would think you would be completely in favor of the Kelo decision.

I am completely against the notion that man passed laws can trump natural rights. Ownership of private property is a foundational principle of our society, and if I regard it beyond the authority of federal courts, I most certainly regard it as beyond the authority of state courts.

3...
2...
1...