Supreme Communists: "This land's not your land... "

The Supreme Communists of the United States say private property... ain't "Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Despite years of intrusion into state issues, extending Constitutional guarantees to all levels of government and insisting on conformity in state laws to rights ennumerated at the federal level in all state and local—and even extra-governmental—venues; despite even the penchant of courts, and especially SCOTUS, for creating "rights" not ennumerated and imposing these on state and local governments; and despite the fact that Amendment V clearly and unequivocally states that private property cannot be taken for public use without "just compensation" the Supreme Communists have decided that YOUR land, YOUR home is up for grabs any time a local government wants to take it from YOU and sell (or give) it to another NON-public entity or person for PRIVATE PROPERTY usage, then that's just fine and dandy (by a 5-4 margin) by the Supreme Communists of the United States. Those are the plain unvarnished facts of the case the Supreme Communists decided the other day. "High court approves seizure of property for private use By MICHAEL DOYLE June 22, 2005 Local governments can condemn private property and convert it to more profitable private use, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday. In one of the most closely watched cases of the year, the court, by a 5-4 margin, extended the eminent domain powers that frequently incite controversy. It's a marked victory for city planners and local officials over private property advocates...." I am just *this close* (see the tiny gap between my thumb and forefinger?) to agreeing with Kim du Toit's take on this: Yesterday, with their disgusting, un-Constitutional ruling, the Supreme Court took the country further down that road to where the bullets will eventually, and with absolute certainty, begin to fly. So when some poor schmuck shoots a state employee driving a bulldozer, and people ask: “How did this tragedy happen?” you can just point towards the Supreme Court. Say bye-bye to private property. And while you're at it, kiss all your "unalienable rights" goodbye. When the government (or any of its agents) can take an ennumerated Constitutional right and define it out of existence (public use does NOT mean grab by politicians for use by another private entity, no matter how one twists one's words), you no longer have rights; you have licenses that the government can remove from you. Welcome to Zimbabwe. Crossposted at Cathouse Chat.