This is the third time that you've failed to see my point. My point is that the phrase "just compensation" means a price that both the buy and the seller thinks is appropriate. This is also known as the Randian concept of the Value Proposition otherwise known as Value for Value. If the seller doesn't want to sell, the government can't buy. The Takings Clause does not give the government the power to presume ownership simply because it waves cash around.

As I also explained, just because the Supreme Court has ruled on a subject doesn't not mean that is the end of discussion on the topic. The same issue can be tried again in the Court and the Court may reverse itself or clarify its earlier ruling. Likewise, Congress acts as a check on the Court by issuing new laws and the President provides balance by selecting justices to sit on the bench after approval of the Senate.

Your comic is an oversimplification of the issues being discussed here.

Basically, its ridiculous to think that everyone should agree with every law which is Constitutional.
This is the most ignorant thing you have said to date!

If one shouldn't agree with every law that is Constitutional, what's the point of having a Constitution, given the fact that

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--emphasis mine

If we are not going to judge our laws by the measuring stick of the Law of the Land, what measuring stick shall we use?

What then is the purpose of the Constitution?