[DoodleDawg]

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.

But since you criticize the Kelo decision then you seem to believe that it isn't beyond the authority of the Federal courts. That the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped in and issued a decision which, by the way, would impact every other state in how they use their eminent domain powers. And if you grant the Federal Government authority over eminent domain then how can you criticize it when it takes authority over marriage and abortion and what have you?

[DiogenesLamp]

But since you criticize the Kelo decision then you seem to believe that it isn't beyond the authority of the Federal courts. That the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped in and issued a decision which, by the way, would impact every other state in how they use their eminent domain powers.

They could have simply informed the lower court that their understanding of the purpose of "Imminent Domain" is incorrect; That public need and usage does not extend so far as to allow them to seize property to give to someone else to use to make a profit, and thus indirectly stimulate the economy which might indirectly benefits the state.

Imminent Domain should only be used for immediate and direct benefit to the Citizens and the state, and should not require the involvement of third parties and indirect revenue.

The State Court's understanding is wrong, and So apparently is the Federal Court's, and I don't find these levels of ignorance at all surprising because we see the same sort of foolishness regarding all sorts of other aspects of Law.

Our legal system has become a collection of imbeciles who badly need to be tossed out of it.

And if you grant the Federal Government authority over eminent domain then how can you criticize it when it takes authority over marriage and abortion and what have you?

Having a Federal Court point out to a State court that their understanding of the meaning of Imminent Domain is incorrect is not giving the Federal Government any new Authority over the state. It's insuring that the state recognizes and protects the long understood rights as outlined by the common law, and by specific protections in the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

For example, Bubba Ho-tep's argument about killing left handed people is an obvious violation of the long existing rights understood by all to extend to this class of people. You can't take away fundamental rights through the action of a state court except in punishment of a crime.