The right has never opposed eminent domain for a public use (i.e., a public "good") as long as the property owner is fairly compensated, but does oppose confiscation simply for the public "benefit" of increased tax receipts when it is then transferred to some private developer, who makes enormous profits on the project.

Good, then there's no problem because, as I'm sure you know, the Supreme Court in Kelo specifically held that it would be unconstitutional for the government to take property simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party.

Ah, I see. The Right opposes profits. That should make raising taxes easier for President Edwards.

Ah, OJ is baiting the border security folks again. OJ knows perfectly well that building a border security fence is well within the government's "public use" (note I did NOT say "public good") clause of the 5th Amendment's guarantee to ownership of private property.

Though I do have to admit, it would be hilarious to hear these landowners claim in court that the taking, and the fence, would reduce property values. The history of land ownership in the West would tell these folks that fencing greatly enhanced property values. Open range is a proven license to steal, and thus a security risk.

It's a bizarre reading of public use to claim that property can be taken for merely decorative purposes but not for a purpose that provides a stream of cash to the public treasury.