State control of the economy, maintaining the forms but not the substance of private property — isn’t that a definition of fascism?
I’ve been puzzled, by the way, at the argument that the Fifth Amendment allows takings only for ‘public use’. Seems to me the plain language of it restricts only such takings, leaving takings for private use wide open.
I noticed that too. It’s a good example of where a literal reading misses the plain meaning, which one might think was an impossible combination.
Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Kelo contains a tortuous analysis of this point.