Bill Roper's Journal

I agree that the only theory that matters is whether the law is constitutional, not whether it is a good idea; however, the article seems to dwell on producing examples where it would be a good idea to condemn property and using those to argue that therefore we should define "public use" in a way that wouldn't appear to be a public use if one simply reads the words as written.

I would theorize that one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights is to prevent us from doing things that might "seem like a good idea" at the expense of the rights of the individual.