Oh I see, so in the case of Writs of Attainder, you take the most general empowerent of The Government (ie only Bills of attainder passed by Congress are prohibited, the executive can wield them to heart's desire), but in the general welfare clause, you seek to limit Governmental power to an absolute minium. IOW its ok to lock someone up on a capricious charge with no meaningful due process or habeas but its not ok to improve the lives of citizens.....

Wrong in both instances, Degs. In all cases, I require the government to be limited in its scope and power in the way that the Constitution says. It says (and this was the standing definition for 170 years) that government funds can only go to support the "general" welfare -- not the welfare of a specific group (the poor, the elderly, farmers). It says that the government can take property for public "use." It doesn't say the government can take property for public "purpose." It bans "bills" of attainder -- and bills are in enactedby Congress. It is silent otherwise. The words mean what they say, and only by twisting them can they be made to say or mean anything else.

as for "terms of art" - Thomas doesn't claim to rely on "terms of art".

"Bill of attainder" is a term of art. "Public use" (as opposed to public purpose) is merely a reading of the plain text of the Constitution. Neither I nor Thomas is twisting anything here.

And note that the US Constitution does not set a minmum period that property must be held by a government before it can be sold off to "satisfy the debts" of the government.

Thus for a TEXTUALIST - which is what Thomas claims to be - there is nothing more than the text, an the text places no limits on the TYPE of use that The Government must place upon the property, nor the duration that The Government must hold the property.

Twist away degs, but you can't make "use" turn into "purpose." Taking the land from someone to give it to a private developer, in the name of increasing tax revenue, does not put the property into public USE, no matter that it might benefit the public purpose. I don't regard Thomas' reading as contemporaneous -- use and purpose can't mean the same thing today and didn't mean the same thing in the 1700s. If anything, the majority is using a contemporaneous interpretation of the text by "repurposing" the word "use." Which makes the majority activist, not Thomas.