JWK:
You claim to be an constitutional expert who runs his own "American Constitutional Research Service." Accordingly, if you have the slightest idea of the things you are talking about, you should be able to read my posts and understand them.
Either you're evading or avoiding or you truly don't understand. If it's the former, I'm tired of your hypocritical game. If it's the latter, you truly need to reevaluate the merits of presenting yourself as a constitutional expert.
* * * *
hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
* * * *
Here are your professed beliefs:
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 1: The Bill of Rights (including the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment) applies to FEDERAL ACTION ONLY. The Takings Clause does not apply to STATE ACTION.
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 2: The Fourteenth Amendment applies to STATE ACTION, but only when a state seeks to regulate on the basis of race, color, or former condition of slavery.
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 3: Your first two "professed beliefs" are based on your construction of the Constitution which in turn is based on what you believe was the original intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 4: Whenever the United States Supreme Court applies any of the protections in the Bill of Rights to STATE ACTION (via the Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court is subverting the Constitution, betraying Federalism, committing an act of Tyranny, and becomes a PUBLIC ENEMY.
PROFESSED BELIEF No. 5: FEDERALISM. Unless given explicit authority under the Constitution through one of its delegated, enumerated powers, the federal government is required to keep its nose out of STATE business. In other words, you are a proponent of STATES' RIGHTS.
* * *
NOW. Given your professed beliefs, the Supreme Court did not have authority to apply the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to STATE ACTION in the Kelo case via the Fourteenth Amendment.
ALSO. Given your professed beliefs, the issue of "public use" with respect to STATE ACTION is a STATES' RIGHTS issue.
ALSO. Given your professed beliefs, the people in the State of Connecticut cannot rely on the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to provide federal constitutional protection against STATE takings cases; they cannot rely on the federal government via the U.S. Supreme Court to grant them protection they are not entitled to have in our system of federalism, and the people of the State of Connecticut must look to their own democratic political processes of their own state to limit their own state's power of eminent domain.
ALSO. Given your professed beliefs, you should be thrilled that the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the STATE because, AGAIN, according to your professed beliefs, the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear this particular grievance and the people's remedy, if any, lies with their own state government.
* * * *
HOWEVER, DESPITE YOUR PROFESSED BELIEFS, you criticize the Supreme Court for its failure (in you eyes) to properly apply the FEDERAL "public use" doctrine to protect people against the harmful actions of their STATE government.
* * * *
CONCLUSION: Your current criticism of the United States Supreme Court demonstrates an instance of FALSENESS in the application of your professed beliefs . . . hence: HYPOCRISY. (See definition of HYPOCRISY posted above.)
So your speculation about the intent of framers and ratififiers of the "that state constitution" is totally irrelevant. 