Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:06:49 -0500 From: Fred W <Malt_Houndnospamm-me-not*yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Well, the convertible is on Ebay now.
Everett M. Greene wrote: > > We're splitting hairs here. While it's true that the > Supreme Court didn't say it was OK for governments to > take property solely for economic/tax gain, they > kicked the issue back to the State(s) which had already > decided that it was OK. Or, to use a double-negative, > the Supremes decided to not rule that it's not OK. 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, although it apparently is done all the time in nearly every state for the "right" reasons. It is the state's responsibility to determine what those right reasons are. 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. -- -Fred W
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
