Date: 28 Mar 2006 12:54:10 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:41:09 PST, 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. >> 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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
