I know it's long, so skip it until you have the time & inclination to read the whole thing.  But, it's important.  So please read the whole thing at some point.

I've been wanting to write something about this for about a week, but it aggravates me so much that I can't organize my thoughts on it; so, I'll just ask you guys for your thoughts.

The story is this:
     The Chemung County (NY) government is attempting to "purchase" certain land owned by the Johnson Family to make room for a "distribution facility" to be developed by an undisclosed Fortune 100 company.
     The Johnson Family has, so far, refused to sell; despite an offer by the county of $30,000 an acre, for land assessed at $12,000 an acre.
     As a result, the county is considering legal action to seize it through eminent domain.  
As one news article puts it, "Eminent domain would allow the government to seize Johnson's property without his consent. The amount paid to Johnson would be determined by a judge."
For more background on this specific case, you could check out these articles:
http://www.the-leader.com/archive/x1520648884
http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080221/NEWS01/802210327/1001/ARCHIVES
http://www.stargazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS01/802290318/1007/RSS06

     As you may know, the 2005 Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London, legalized government takings for any purpose that the local government perceives would "benefit" the community -- such benefits usually taking the form of increased tax revenue.  This case overruled prior law which allowed takings only for "public use", or for a "public purpose" (usually roads, utilities, sewage, etc.)  So, in one sense, the "taking" under "eminent domain"* proposed in the Chemung County situation is, post-Kelo, perfectly legal.
                                                                    * here's a good explanation of what eminent domain USED TO                                                                  BE, before Kelo: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html

     However, in another (more accurate) sense, this action, and the Kelo decision itself, are beyond unconstitutional.  They are in blatant and undeniable contradiction to the principles upon which this nation was founded.   The ideal of republicanism**, the foundation of liberty in America; the concepts of natural law and self determination; and government of the People, by the People, and for the People --- all are in direct opposition to the tyrannical appropriation of private property allowed by Kelo and endorsed by local and State governments across America.
                                                                    ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

    I say that Kelo and subsequent acts are "beyond" unconstitutional because, although they are diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of, and the intent of, the U.S. Constitution -- they are "legal" as nearly-comical misinterpretations of the Constitution by the communist members of our highest court.  However, they cannot, by any reasonable "reading", "interpretation", misconstruance, or misunderstanding be squared with the founding principle of this nation as expressly described in the Declaration of Independence.  That founding principle is this: that there are RIGHTS -- natural, or God-given -- RIGHTS that CANNOT be legitimately denied to the citizens of ANY nation or ANY government.  ANY nation; ANY government, which infringes upon these natural rights is, by definition, TYRRANY.
    So, what are these RIGHTS?  Well, aside from those specifically elucidated in the Bill of Rights; you may remember the THREE INALIENABLE RIGHTS listed in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
     Rather than enter a philosophical discussion of how the "Pursuit of Happiness" is tied inevitably and irrevocably to the right to own property; let me simply address a seemingly insignificant point of history.  The Declaration of Independence was drafted by Thomas Jefferson.  According to Jefferson, the ideas in the Declaration were commonly expressed throughout the 17th and 18th centuries.  Jefferson primary source of inspiration was John Locke's Second Treatise of Government.  Ideas, principles, and even some phrasing were taken directly from Locke's writings.  Among these adoptions were the premise that inalienable natural rights consisted primarily of "Life, Liberty and Property".   According to Jefferson, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."
    In the final days/hours before the Declaration was signed, it was Ben Franklin who insisted upon changing "Life, Liberty and Property" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
   Nevertheless, the ideals and founding principles of the United States were widely understood to include an inalienable right to property.  This understanding was, at the time, considered a matter of universal agreement and of "common sense" -- to steal Thomas Paine's title.  Throughout the vast majority of this nation's history, the UNDENIABLE RIGHT TO PROPERTY has been accepted as a fundamental part of the American experience and the justifiable predominance of free-market capitalism.  It is only through prolonged distance from founding principles; through distortion of the concept of inalienable rights; and through decades and centuries of the perversion of the clear and plain purpose of the United States Constitution and American Government overall, that a result such as Kelo could be obtained.  
   That there is an undeniable, indisputable, and inalienable God-given RIGHT for American citizens to own property cannot be reasonably argued.  Likewise, that NO Government has any claim to such private property, except for public PURPOSE and with reasonable compensation, cannot be denied without giving power and credence to tyranny.
  
  
     The distinction between "public use" or "public purpose", and public or community "benefit" is not a trivial one.  "Public Uses" and "Public purposes" are those things for which governments, generally, were initially created.  On a federal level, this means the defense of the nation, and the facilitation of interstate trade, and little else.  On a State, or local, level, this may include services which are necessary to the functioning of society, but which are unachievable by individual citizens or property owners.  This includes things like roads, utilities, sewers, public parks, etc..
      "Public Uses" are those improvements which are for use by ANY and ALL members of the Public.
     "Public Purposes"  are achievements or goals which a) are designated by, and originating within "the public" or "the people",  b) that have a universal, or public, benefit (i.e. one that is available to all of the public, not limited to certain members) AND c) which are for Public Use
     
     "Public Benefits" are an abstraction.  They require - without exception - a determination of what is beneficial to the public. In Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court has allowed this determination to be made, not by the public, but by State and Local Governments.  Furthermore, the Kelo decision unambiguously defines increased tax revenue to the government as a "Public Benefit", regardless of the impact upon the public, the society, the nation, or INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
       In other words, the majority opinion in the Kelo case unequivocally abrogates individual property rights which, as you may remember, are INALIENABLE except through tyranny.
     Furthermore, if the determination of the best (most economical) use of land by the government smacks of the planned economy of the former Soviet Union, this is no coincidence.  The determination of benefit to the public, to society, or to the economy by the government -- and the imposition of that determination by the government -- is COMMUNISM.  There are three factors of production to any economy; Land, Labor, and Capital.  The Kelo ruling and the subsequent use of eminent domain to effect what governments decide is the best (most economical) use of land, is, quite obviously, the elimination of the free-market disposition of that land.  By and through the unchallengeable Un-Americanism of the Kelo decision, communism, as evidenced by government control of the means of economic production, has become reality in this country.
      This is not hypothetical.
      This is not ambiguous.
      This is not a future concern.
      This is not a slow-slide down a socialist slope.
      THIS IS COMMUNISM ..... HERE..... NOW... TODAY.   Down your street, or in the next town over; this will inevitably reach YOU and YOUR "Property"
Anyway, I'd like to hear others thoughts on the issue.