[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

No, each case of taking must conform to the "original intent" of the Framers, including the definition of "public use" recognized by them and by common law to that point. I would be willing to wager that public sanitation or public roads would qualify, and that to provide hiking paths or to prevent development of a farm would not...

[Alberta's Child]

No, each case of taking must conform to the "original intent" of the Framers, including the definition of "public use" recognized by them and by common law to that point. I would be willing to wager that public sanitation or public roads would qualify, and that to provide hiking paths or to prevent development of a farm would not.

The problem with that argument is that it is based on a historical condition that is frozen in time. I have no problem with that, but you would then have to say that things like television, radio, the internet, etc. are not covered under the First Amendment right to free speech.

It's worth noting, BTW, that this whole notion of the COnstitution as a great, "inspired" document that embodies principles that may as well have been written by the hand of God is a lot of nonsense. A quick look back at the events leading up to the Whiskey Rebellion will show you just how quickly those freedoms and liberties got tossed out the window by many of the very same people who ratified the original Constitution in the first place.