It is frankly quite unusual that the Supreme Court details so concisely how it has eroded freedom in this country to serve its own elitist notions. However, the recent Kelo decision gives as detailed a portrait of the death of freedom as I have seen in a long time. To wit, from the third paragraph of the third section of the majority opinion:
On the other hand, this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public. Id., at 244. [referring to the case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff] Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?), but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society. Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906). We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since. [FOOTNOTES DELETED]
The true spirit of the 5th Amendment's taking clause has "eroded over time." Eroded by what force exactly?
Public use has been transfigured into public purpose. Again, who authorized the rewrite of the Bill of Rights?
An interpretation was straightfacedly called "broader and more natural" than what the Founders actually wrote down and ratified? Yep.
And now, were it not absolutely clear before, your private property is now convertible to public purposes in the name of whimsically diverse and always evolving needs of society.
Reminds me of an anecdotal tale of an African elite rationalizing kleptocracy. Explaining from his parked Mercedes paid for by the toil of his people he reputedly said, "In this country what is mine is mine and what is yours we share."
If a First World economic power is hallmarked in part by the inviolability of private property, under the rule of law, we just demoted ourselves to the Third World. Essentially, the home owners in New London just had their property nationalized on the barest claims of necessity just as if they resided in a banana republic.
At least in Kelo Justice Stevens is kind enough to map out just how the Second Amendment would be treated as a quaint and archaic notion, that must be reinterpreted as such, for the needs of society.
On the other hand, this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public. Id., at 244. [referring to the case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff] Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?), but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society. Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company’s use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes’ opinion for the Court stressed “the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test.” Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906). We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since. [FOOTNOTES DELETED]
The true spirit of the 5th Amendment's taking clause has "eroded over time." Eroded by what force exactly?
Public use has been transfigured into public purpose. Again, who authorized the rewrite of the Bill of Rights?
An interpretation was straightfacedly called "broader and more natural" than what the Founders actually wrote down and ratified? Yep.
And now, were it not absolutely clear before, your private property is now convertible to public purposes in the name of whimsically diverse and always evolving needs of society.
Reminds me of an anecdotal tale of an African elite rationalizing kleptocracy. Explaining from his parked Mercedes paid for by the toil of his people he reputedly said, "In this country what is mine is mine and what is yours we share."
If a First World economic power is hallmarked in part by the inviolability of private property, under the rule of law, we just demoted ourselves to the Third World. Essentially, the home owners in New London just had their property nationalized on the barest claims of necessity just as if they resided in a banana republic.
At least in Kelo Justice Stevens is kind enough to map out just how the Second Amendment would be treated as a quaint and archaic notion, that must be reinterpreted as such, for the needs of society.
... A clear message needs to be sent to somebody that this is not what Our Forefathers and Veterans envisioned,fought, and died for, now is it 
?! I really feel sick to my stomache 
...
