The problem with having an allegiance to the Constitution, as I often point out or imply in various ways, is that a lot of things are actually Constitutional. Like the Kelo decision, last year, that everyone was up in arms about -- as if it had just suddenly dawned on them that the government can force you to sell your property for essentially any reason they deem appropriate. Of course, what everyone does to evade the fact of the matter -- the reality of the thing -- is to draw meaningless distinctions, as if a freeway qualifies as a "public good," but a pharmacy or shopping center doesn't. Well, anyway, here's your latest outrage, which I first saw here at Warren Meyer's place. He thinks it might have a chance in the SCOTUS that Kelo didn't, but even if that's true, it's not that you're going to read in the opinion that the duty of the government is to unequivocally uphold the pre-existing, natural right of all to own and direct property and capital as only they see fit. Yet, if SCOTUS were to overturn it, watch and see how relieved and vindicated everyone acts, when what would really be...