Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:09:31 PST From: mojavegnospamveg.iwvisp.com (Everett M. Greene) Subject: Re: Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.
> Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> writes: > Everett M. Greene <mojavegnospamveg.iwvisp.com> wrote: > > Fred W <Malt_Houndnospamm-me-not*yahoo.com> writes: > > >> That's not "splitting hairs" at all. Their non-ruling says > >> only that this is not an issue for the federal court system > >> to decide. That does not mean it is constitutional for a > >> state to take private property, > > > If the Supremes don't say it's unconstitutional, then it's > > constitutional. > > The feds don't have the authority to decide things like that for the > states, Everett. Do you want them trampling states' rights? > You can't break down that barrier just for the times you want to. This wasn't a states' rights discussion. It was a thread about whether there are protections against taking of private property by the government and the Supremes said that there isn't as much as some would like in the Federal constitution. > >> Personally, being a quasi-libertarian, I have a problem > >> with the government taking personal property for any reason. > >> But of course they never actually "take" it. They are > >> required to provide "fair value" (whatever that means) > >> for the taken property. > > > There's taking and then there's taking. If the owner > > doesn't want to sell at any price but the courts rule > > that he must, he's being taken. Granted the owner > > will be compensated, but... > > But..., the SCOTUS has nothing to do with the legality > of that. They do if it violates the "taking" clause (or any other part) of the U.S. Constitution.