Reply #71: Nowhere in the fifth ammendment does it say what you said

[K-W]

You are once again isisting that public use means that it must stay in public hands, an outlandish and completely unsupported interpretation.

"What historical facts should I learn? It's interesting that you are part of a minuscule minority and yet you expect me to justify what I believe with "historical facts" and accuse me of making "wild assumptions"?

You seem to think that the opinion of forum posters is valid evidence of the facts, it isnt.

I expect you to justify your claims. And whether or not people agree with your wild assumption it was a wild assumption. You argued that such power must produce a different reality than we have now, that is, even if every human being on the planet agreed with you, a wild assumption.

"Give me one example where a local government traditionally seized private land in order to hand it over to a private developer. Just one example."

Why? You havent explained what this proves, since you havent supported your creative interpretation of the constitution. Until you can prove that "public use" means "this property must stay in the commons forever" it doesnt matter who the government hands the land over to.