I don't think my argument would justify Kelo; in that case, the structure of legal rights was interfering with someone's natural rights, and so the legal right of the state should have lost.
Certainly you have to agree there's a difference between a natural right like "the right to property" and a civil right like having X number of people in your jury. Civil rights just flesh out the details of natural rights; but that doesn't give them the, er, right to trump natural rights.
From experience, most FReepers don't understand the difference between Natural law and positive law, much less civil law and statutory law.
---------
>>Civil rights just flesh out the details of natural rights; but that doesn't give them the, er, right to trump natural rights.
VERY true. Unfortunately, our government has spent the last 200 or so years trying to blend the multiple law system of our Republic created by the Founders into one 'legal system' of *law* where IT has the unquestioned authority to define all the words.
I'm sure you're against Kelo. The irony here is that the state, supposedly indispensible to protecting my rights, is in fact the biggest threat to my rights that there is.