do you believe that the government should use eminent 5th to take private property for private investors?

Answer 1

No. But that's a decision that each state gets to make.

The Supreme Court ruled (Kelo v. New London) that it's up to the state/local government to determine what counts as being for the "benefit of the public". So, legally, if a city or state determines that forcing a sale to private investors would result in a benefit to the public, they are allowed to do so.

It's interesting that the same people who keep arguing that states should get to decide abortion or drug use are unhappy when the Supreme Court says states get to decide this.

Answer 2

No. I feel that Souter's opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) is so offensive to American values and the common law that I am totally amazed that anyone would support that stupid ruling.

Bottom line, taking private property for private investors means nothing more than dispossessing the weak to make the powerful richer.

That's why most states are passing laws to nullify at least the state effects of Kelo. Congress should also do the same thing and take away the power of states to take from the weak and give to the strong. Its just reprehensible.

What a disaster! They need to get their you know what straight.

Answer 3

Never.

Answer 4

NO!