Property rights need to be comprehensive. Simply re-working existing laws and limiting eminent domain to cases of public use is not enough protection. Disagreements about the nature of use and purpose are at the very heart of the Kelo decision. The decision demonstrates how a judicial ruling can subvert legislative intent. Over time case law can (and has) dramatically redefined the basic precepts upon which property rights have traditionally rested. For many judges, use and purpose have become interchangeable.

[ Download Complete Article ]