Cities may seize homes; tenth amendment, anyone?

The Supreme Court (at least the liberal majority thereof) has suddenly discovered the tenth amendment, but only for the purpose of allowing cities to seize private homes and give them to developers.

It is understandable that many observers have become totally confused about the role of the courts and the meaning of limited government. According to narrow majorities of the Supreme Court over the past few decades (and/or their leftist allies), state and local governments may:

1) seize homes

2) order the death of innocent sick people based on the word of a spouse

3) impose confiscatory taxation and regulation

4) invert the definition of marriage and force other states to recognize such
inversions

5) violate the second amendment

6) violate the first amendment with so-called hate crimes legislation

But, state and local governments may not:

1) Prohibit or regulate abortion, even for those babies whose birth is imminent

2) permit or recognize the practice of religion on state property

3) avoid the requirements of the Federal labor laws for municipal employees

Clear enough? State and local governments are free to pursue the leftist agenda, especially if it violates property rights, speech rights and gun rights. But the state cannot take any action that hinders the federal government's march to the brave new world into which it is taking us.

Maybe it is time for a national discussion on the Tenth Amendment. It is time that we rediscover that part of the Constitution. The issue may seem arcane and quaint, but the concept of limited government may depend on just such a discussion.