It provided an advantage to the Maryland planters over those in North Carolina, as an example. It was done to serve local needs, not the needs of the industry.
Whoa whoa whoa, states operate (especially back then) as almost separate nations. Were these roads directed by federal authorities to benefit a local region, or a state to benefit its own industry?
As far as the harbor thing I wish you'd stop bringing it up as even if it was identical to the situation in the SCOTUS it would not address my position at all. I still do not see how you are making a connection, but whether I convince you or you convince me about that harbor it will not change the real argument. And I find that subject boring which makes me not want to dwell on it.
Frankly as I have already said even the tobacco roads would not effect my position, but at least that makes some point about an early usage of a broader concept of use.
In this case the decision was that a mall in the selected location met the needs of the citizens of that area. The case was made at the local level that locating the mall there was in the interest of the citizens of that area.
Meet needs, once again slipping the leash. It could not provide any USE which was not available to that same region and the people of that region, without that specific confiscation. Indeed the last part of the portion you quoted went into that.
It didn't just have to be an entire industry.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
