Yes, there is one reason... to be interpreted that way. It could also been written: "or shall private property be taken for public purpose, without just compensation"

But really, having a public, nonprofit or private management is not centrally relevant. What is more relevant is that it is done for the public interest.

GP post is correct. I've taken this Shinkansen route.

From the timetable, per day, I count more than 130 departures from Tokyo on the West line (see JR timetable), and more than 200 trains westbound (some don't start from Tokyo).

Considering that the train lines are usually two ways, the numbers should be multiplied by about 2.

No it's not. It's a fact. The situation of black and white is NOT symmetric. Blacks did not have White slaves; at least not in the US. "Black" governements did not colonize the planet, under the argument of the "burden of civilization" (or the "burden of the white man"), that is the duty to bring civilization to inferior races whose sophistication was only marginally better than chimps. Whites did not to left there seat in the bus, when Blacks could not find room.

So of course not, you cannot replace "Black" and "White" in a sentence and expect it to be as neutral. History and present situation make the situation asymmetric.

I cannot believe you are modded insightful. Comparing M. Obama to a chimp is offensive, because it's exactly what racists did for centuries. Comparing Bush to a chimp is not racist, hence not offensive. Is it hard to understand?

Now, yes, comparing Sarah Palin's disabled child to a chimp, that would be offensive.

Besides, I'm all in favor of free speech, and I would not care much if an Obama Chimp picture replaced the logo of Google or FoxNews. However it is inescapable that it has racially charged.

It is true and it works the opposite way:

"Racism is not truly a thing of the past therefore we cannot make fun of black and white politicians alike."

As evidenced by this image. Not racist at all?