As the self-appointed ambassador from the wahoos, I will do all I can to persuade them that hardworking Mexicans are better than Kelo-sucking government officials.

I must also remind you that this wouldn't really be a Kelo case unless Chertoff sold/gave the land to Costco or Boeing - which I'm sure has been discussed in the vetting of bribe-worthy Republican projects.

Just delicious.

Taking away someone's business or home so the land can be sold to big developers that will create taxes is a lot different than taking land for what is considered a national security issue. And I'm on your side.

The fence is just a Boeing subsidy.

Patrick:

The Founders, following the Common Law, considered efficient use of property to be a fundamental issue of national security, which is why they placed it above property rights in the Constitution.

At least along the Canadian border, you don't really own the land right up next to it (like 20ft or so), no matter what you might think as the owner. Our various treaties with the Evil Canucks specifiy what can and can't be done in that strip, and how that band is supposed to be maintained. (For example, they require clear sightlines, which is why it's kept free of trees, even in the middle of nowhere, like along Idaho's edge.) Right now there's a dispute wending its way through the courts over just such a case near Blaine, where some homeowner is prevented from doing the landscaping they desire. (It also includes some silly border commissioner who thinks he's immune from Presidental Authority.)