Activism, Ripe for The Takings

Michael Kinsley's strange observation on Kelo:

But they may or may not have thought this. When the local government showers a big development with money and favors, it's usually not about sovereignty but about lack of sovereignty. Private developers play jurisdictions off against one another, extracting concessions from all that none would actually make a sovereign decision to give. A Supreme Court decision that concessions of this sort were unconstitutional would have taken them off the table and actually increased the effective sovereignty of elected officials.

Kinsley obviously doesn't understand that Kelo gave local officials the green light to steal churches,universities,political opponents,and any private property in the name of "progress".What could have increased their "sovereignty" more?WashingtonPost