The Conservative Cat

The problem isn't that legal scholars disagree about what it means. But that they disagree upon how changes can be made.

In general the extreme liberal view is that the Constitution changes when liberals feel it doesn't meet the needs of society. The most conservative say theit doesn't change until amendments are passed.

You are one smart kitty!

The solution to the condemnation to benefit a private developer is to take the profit out of it. Require that the price paid be based on the value as developed.

Beth, your #3 solution, is not a solution. But it may be somewhat effective if crafted well.

Your suggestion shifts the problem from defining "public use" to defining "profit" or "value". But when courts can change definitions the laws mean nothing.

The beauty of the constitution is that it attempted to define what government could and could not do; and make changes hard but possible. The bypass is to contend that definitions are negotiable and mean whatever pleases judges.

Actually, I think you're responding to Walter's idea, not Beth's. Beth's idea is that I'm a smart kitty, which is an undeniable axiom of the universe.

re Ferdy: You are correct. I overlooked Walter's signature and thought Beth wrote his words.

Scalia brilliantly stated what I struggle to express. I paraphrase him roughly thus:

"The liberal judge always has a nice day in court. Whenever he looks at the Constitution he finds it says just what he believes it should say."