[dangus]

>> Oh geeeez, eminent domain was not bolstered by last summer's U.S. Supreme Court ruling... it has been, and always will be a power reserved to states or local govt. to control or abuse. <<

Really? It has always? I'm sure you can provide the precendents, then? So, please do educate all of us, Ms. O'Connor*, when has eminent domain ever been used in the 18th or 19th centuries to benefit a private citizen for no public good other than a supposed increase in tax revenue?

Even if the wording of the Constitution is ambiguous, the practice is not. It is quite plain that the founding fathers considered the unjust siezure of private property both contemptible and destructive of freedom.

(* Oh, excuse me... I just presumed you were she, from your screen name... only taunting :^) ...)

[AZRepublican]

Really? It has always? I'm sure you can provide the precendents, then? So, please do educate all of us, Ms. O'Connor*, when has eminent domain ever been used in the 18th or 19th centuries to benefit a private citizen for no public good other than a supposed increase in tax revenue? Even if the wording of the Constitution is ambiguous, the practice is not. It is quite plain that the founding fathers considered the unjust siezure of private property both contemptible and destructive of freedom.

The takings clause is ambiguous because it was inserted as a direct limitation upon Congress and not local govt. There was no issue when the takings clause addressed only Congress because Congress had such limited powers to exercise the taking of private property under the constitution, unlike State govts.

Every thing in the first 8 amendments is going to be ambigious because they were written for limitations of Congress, not State govts. When Madison attempted to offer a Bill of Rights for both Congress and the States it was rejected because no one wanted Congress with any jurisdiction to legislate anything within the States.

It is up to the citizens to define their own laws what constitutes public works, the Supreme Court can only insure that just compensation has been offered.