[billbears]

To make a long story very short, five Justices ruled that when the Constitution says your home can be taken only for “public use,” it really meant the government can take your house and turn it over to some other private owner who will build a bigger building and pay higher taxes.

No, to make a short story even shorter, five Justices ruled that the town of Kelo had this right and four Justices ruled as if the 14th Amendment somehow applied to the 5th, which it didn't until 1897. In any case, all nine Justices ignored the Constitution and the original intent of the document. It was not meant to apply to the states. If any of the four Justices that voted against Kelo would have used federalism as an argument then I may have had some respect for their decision

[Congressman Billybob]

The Incorporation Doctrine, to which you object, has been settled law for seventy years, and any Justice who tried to decide the case on that basis would have been laughed out of Court. That leaves the plain language and intent of the Fifth Amendment's property rights to resist the land grab.

Asking for what is impossible is not a productive approach. Asking for what is possible, enforcing the Fifth Amendment, is the better approach. That is the way this case will be cut down in future cases. See the history of Plessy v. Ferguson as a template for change in the Supreme Court as better thinking appears among the Justices.

John / Billybob