Degs: When someone discusses the "most natural reading" of a clause in the Constitution, that means they are reading exactly what it says instead of some tortured reading that gives it a different meaning. While I disagree with Kelo, I'm not certain the court could have found any other way, without resorting to a tortured reading of the document. The issue in Kelso, for me at least, was not whether or not the land could be taken, but whether the compensation was just -- and I felt the court could have given the landowner more power in making that determination without a tortured reading of the the 5th Amendment. Even without my own view, I think Thomas makes a valid point that the Framers allowed property taken for public "use" not public "purpose."

By the same token, you are assuming that a tortured reading of the text is "originalist," as the majority did in Kelo. Thomas' dissent is spot on -- a public "use" is a road, or a school, or a park -- a public "purpose" reading of the clause essentially deletes the clause. "If the Public Use Clause served no function other than to state that the government may take property through its eminent domain power–for public or private uses–then it would be surplusage," Thomas writes, correctly.

As for the decision in Boumediene, you would be right on habeas, if there were no historical precedent for detaining enemy combatants without habeas, but there is 200 years of U.S. history in opposition, starting with the Barbary Pirates and going forward through a number of other conflicts, declared and undeclared.

When it comes to a writ of attainder, you are employing a tortured reading. A writ of attainder requires an act of Congress. To wit: A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments to enact bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively. It was considered an excess or abuse of the British monarchy and Parliament."

Mostly, the barring of bills of attainder was about the separation of powers -- their ban keeps the legislature from performing judicial functions. In reality, five acts of congress have been overturned because they were bills of attainder. So you are again employing a tortured reading of the Constitution to try and make your case, just as the SCOTUS judges did in the Boumediene.

Welcom back -- I hope your trip was enjoyable.