Mr Ryskamp believes that this issue hinges on "the essence of the Founders’ intent respecting the Constitution," as voiced by James Madison, sho stated that the Constitution prevents "every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." According to Mr Ryskamp, before Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' tenure, "eminent domain and the commerce clause and lots of other clauses of the Constitution DID enjoy high scrutiny and the Court used that scrutiny to strike down every single piece of social legislation they could. Holmes said the Court had to get out of the policy business, and lower the level of scrutiny so social legislation could pass Constitutional muster. This took a long time to accomplish, but it's where we are now, and no Court is going to go back and undo Holmes' work." That's why, he adds, it's necessary to emphasize the conflict between eminent domain and other important facts it's the only way to win on this issue.
Mr Ryskamp supports this contention by noting that the Kelo petitioners are homeowners, who "are insisting that their opposition to the eminent domain action is not based on the 'private use' of the property; their opposition is based on the fact that the housing involved IS their housing. In short, they think there is some Constitutional reason to distinguish housing AS housing."
John Ryskamp: email@example.com