"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:27:57 -0400, "Vito" said:

unless there is some prohibition in the Constitution or in
underlying common law then "real Constitutional judges" would have to
rule
as the majority just did.

Wrong premise, Vito. Until this ruling there was no common understanding
that taking one man's property and giving it to another private individual
because you prefer the use he intends to make of it has not been regarded
as
equivalent to "public use."

As I understand it the Constitution grants only certain powers to the
federal government, and forbids others to states. For example, it says that
no private property may be taken without just compensation. As far as I can
find there is no "public use" restriction on what local, state or federal
governments do with the property once they have "justly" compensated the
owners. In fact LBJ's "Urban Renewal" took (bought) private property then
gave it to favored developers. Ergo, "real Constitutional judges" would have
to rule as the majority just did.

If that's not right then we need to pass laws or even amend the Constitution
to forbid it. My only point is that strict interpretation of the
Constitution does not seem to forbid it.