Consider that the states had originally decided that they did not have to respect the personal rights that they expressly "protected" in the Bill of Rights (BoR). The state obligated only the federal government to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR.
So hypothetically speaking, if this case had been decided before the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, that amendment applying all constitutionally enumerated personal protections to the states, then the judge would have had to decide the case against private Ohio land owners because of no constitutional checks against state eminent domain power regardless of checks on federal power imo.
Sadly, even after more than 150 years after 14A ratification, some state lawmakers and attorneys evidently still don't have a grip (institutionally indoctrinated?) on constitutional limits on state and federal government powers.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Iowa farmers have had a lot of struggles in protecting their land from confiscation of their land and resources on their land.
For example somè farmers built ponds on their lànd near a major east-west highway. These ponds are well over 100 yards from the hìghway beds. In some cases, 200 yards but some greedy gov joker wanted all that land and they tried to take it. The farmers of coursè said no and they fought to keep that land. The strips of land on the north and south sides of the road represents a llot of acerage, not to mention the water and any fish or wildlife in that water. The farmers won.
With Mr. Johnson at the helm of the farm bureau, they’re likely to continuè to do well. He’s an awesome man who deserves every ounce of support he can get.
“So hypothetically speaking, if this case had been decided before the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, that amendment applying all constitutionally enumerated personal protections to the states, then the judge would have had to decide the case against private Ohio land owners because of no constitutional checks against state eminent domain power regardless of checks on federal power imo.”
That’s a good, and interesting, point.
Over the past few decades, and the Kelo decision may have been the beginning, property rights of the citizens have been eroded further and further. I’m glad to see the judiciary pushing back on the encroachments a bit. Speaking of Kelo, there has been recent news regarding that subject property of that case.