In Kelo vs. New London, (opinions and oral arguments in PDF format) the Supreme Court may have extended the eminent domain powers of government too far. New London's definition of "public good" includes more tax revenue and better economic conditions for its citizens; therefore it is not unreasonable to seize some land and allow a successful private party to put it to use. One of the traditional roles of government has been to promote economic development. Local governments all have very tight budgets and are always looking for more revenue, and they don't seem to be getting any help from the states or the feds. It is almost natural for local governments in this position to ally themselves with successful businesses; it is also almost fascist and quite troubling. If economic development by a private party is considered part of the public good, then the distinction between public and private is blurred. I can see why the justices split 5-4 on this decision, and not along party lines.
Our lovely Congress has been considering H. J. Res. 10, a constitutional amendment to give Congress the power to prohibit physical desecration of the flag. I believe that one cannot desecrate that which lacks religious significance. If we then define desecration as the act of putting something to unworthy use, Congress seems ill-suited to determine what is worthy and what is not. I believe that Congress have proven that many times. f Congress are so angry about desecration of the flag, any of them who vote for this resolution should go to a country where the locals regularly express displeasure about the United States and prevent the desecration of the flag themselves. I don't mind if my tax dollars get spent for that, as long as they fly coach and don't get luxurious accomodations. Oh, by the way, aren't we supposed to burn the flag when it needs to be respectfully disposed?
Promises have been broken, and principles have been abandoned. There is no party which fights for limited government.