Not saying that their decision was altogether inaccurate, though. I really am not sure what is and is not on the books. But I'm surprised that they didn't bend the 5th Amendment just a little.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now, the way I read this is that private property can be taken for public use, but here (in the case in question, and this new hotel) it's most definitely being taken for private use, not public. What I'm trying to figure out is where the loophole exists. I'll have to read the full decision with my Law > English dictionary. (Twitch)
Speaking of Twitch, his sister was kind enough to read my entry from Saturday night, and called to ask when they were starting my Beatifiation process.
In the meantime, I hope to get what cleaning I have to done quickly tonight. Then home to do laundry and hopefully catch up on a movie that was loaned to me in November. (Yeah, I'm that far behind.)