A proper Constitutional view of the Kelo case of eminent domain:

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, the power to protect is also the power to destroy.

The Kelo case had the correct outcome though for the wrong reasons: they left it up to the states to find a solution. That should have been the end of it BEFORE it ever came up before the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, they shouldn't have made a FEDERAL case out of it.

Too many times, in the name of "protecting" citizens, the Supreme Court has come between the states and their citizens. For every time most folks may agree that they decided the "correct" way, there are hundreds of times they've decided the wrong way and EVERY decision that has taken power away from the states has violated the U.S. Constitution.

The Kelo case of eminent domain: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London ) was tragic indeed on a personal basis but a solution at the state level IS POSSIBLE. The Federal government had no business meddling in state affairs JUST AS THEY HAD NO BUSINESS "PROTECTING" WOMEN'S "RIGHT" TO AN ABORTION by taking power away from the states. The Federal government is no more allowed to enforce abortion availability to the states than it is to prohibit it--WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! If Roe v. Wade is overturned, the matter goes back to the states where it properly belongs along with those other state matters like laws against murder, traffic laws, real estate laws, state eminent domain, etc.

The restriction in the U.S. Constitution against the taking of property in such a case is ONLY a restriction against the FEDERAL government from doing such (according to the original intent and as things stand today in regards to amendments and their plain language--ignoring the illegal decisions of the Supreme Court over the past ten or so decades).

It is up to the states--and the RESPONSIBILITY of the citizens there--to manage such rules regarding situations whereby eminent domain may be employed by that state's governmental bodies (including counties and municipalities and such). That is a GREAT situation because, as in abortion and a lot of other controversial issues: ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!

If you don't like the laws in your state, change them or leave if it's important enough to you.

Here in South Carolina, one group, Grass Roots Gun Rights, has taken the bull by the horns and actively worked to pass a liberal concealed carry "must issue" permit that has allowed hundreds of thousands of citizens to protect themselves against the criminal element almost everywhere they go. We couldn't do that before this one group (started in the 1990s by someone whom I've personally met and greatly admire) got busy and TOOK RESPONSIBILITY for their state government's actions. DO YOU THINK THIS COULD HAPPEN AS EASILY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL? If you do, you're deluding yourself.

We all are railing at the current state of affairs regarding the nearly omnipotent Federal government. The violations of states rights by the over-reaching corruption from the three branches of government is at the root of nearly EVERY problem we have.

For example, according to the U.S. Constitution, each state is perfectly free to have a state church and to OUTLAW churches they don't approve of. ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS RESTRICTED FROM MAKING LAWS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHURCH according to the legal contract binding the states together. Read Locke if you don't believe me. A few states were let into the Union with state churches intact.

You may ask, "But where's the harm of letting anyone worship as they please?" I'd respond, "Wouldn't you like to be able to tell people worshiping Satan that they can't be respected as a church by the state government?

If we were respected as adult citizens in our states and allowed to manage our own affairs as our ancestors were allowed to do for several decades, I think we'd find that we'd do remarkably well and offer the citizens of this country a diverse and unique collection of different representative republican governments to choose from.

We were allowed, when there were far fewer of us (thirteen million or so spread about among the thirteen states in 1787 vs. the 300 million or so in the fifty states in 2009) to take care of our own affairs.  Why do so many (especially the fascists and socialists) think we are incapable of doing so without unconstitutional interference from the Federal government today?

wtc