But thanks for the article for this part is quite interesting:
The framers of the Constitution envisioned such eventualities and provided for them in what is commonly called the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The wording acknowledges the ownership of private property and anticipates the need for the taking of private land for public use only when just compensation is offered.
Thank you for this. Again, the implied definition of eminent domain is ‘taking’, which I and the Constitution is against. ‘Compensating’ which I agree with as does the Constitution would be quite acceptable. Are you against the Constitution?...and I’d rather not change the thread to a discussion on Kelo v New London.