The Supreme Court

[Shade Everdark]

And, as usual, you come so close, and miss my point entirely.

IF the decision had gone the other way, the Justices would still have been interpreting the Constitution.

Probably more than in interpreting the Constitution as they did with the standing opinion. If you read the opinion, you will find that are several precedents on the books for public use works that have been entirely built, owned, and operated by private interests. Does that mean I agree with it? No. Does that make it ethical, according to my standards? Hell no. Is it still an interpretation of what the framers intended when they wrote the words they did? Yes.

[the eternal]

...

[The_Dark]

Eternal... just so you know... this isn't a debate... it's a discussion. Something the world needs more of.

Shade: I saw your point. I don't agree with it. I think the Justices should look at the case, look at the Constitution and Precedence’s already made and Judge if that case is or is not constitutional. If no part of the Constitution covers said case it should be sent back to the legislature of the state in which it originated.