Ground Zero Suggestion
Freedom Fries
representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.
Over 20 Iraqis are killed a day. This comes out to 7,000 to 10,000 dead
Iraqi citizens per year. These people deserve a memorial for their
sacrifice. A memorial should also be built at the WRC. It can be christened
by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with bags of money instead of champagne;
champagne is French you know, can't go there.
A state of the art day care facility should be included to care for the
orphans that have lost parents thanks to the war. It's for Americans to step
up and do the right thing. Support the WRC.
Douglas
"Freedom Fries" <BushWasResponsible@9/11.com> wrote in message
news:42ccc...@x-privat.org...
Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
"Douglas" <do...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:IY4ze.6488$Gv3.2597@trnddc02...
> Psychos like this that need to have their friggen heads examined...
Examined, beat in with a sledgehammer, whatever...
LG
--
The conditions of conquest are always easy. We have but to toil awhile,
endure awhile, believe always, and never turn back. - Marcus Annaeus Seneca
Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
If only we hadn't removed that peace loving and carefree Saddam then no
Iraqis would have ever suffered again.
Hey Fuckstick, how about reading about Iraq from someone actually there:
http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/ ($1 to DEP)
lein
Freedom Fries wrote:
> It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write their
> representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
> zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
> a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
> congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
> to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
> the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.
dumbass, the WTC site isn't owned by the U.S. Government.
Edward M. Kennedy
dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
--Tedward
Evil Sideshow Bob
commitment to Sparkle Motion!
dumbass, what the fuck does Diana Ross' backup singers have to with
Ground Zero?
--
We're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know,
first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second
prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> > It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write their
> >> > representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
> >> > zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
> >> > a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
> >> > congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
> >> > to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
> >> > the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.
> >>
> >> dumbass, the WTC site isn't owned by the U.S. Government.
> >
> >dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>
> dumbass, what the fuck does Diana Ross' backup singers have to with
> Ground Zero?
dumbass, what city does "Motown" stand for?
--Tedward
Fredric L. Rice
>It's time for Americans to take out some paper and
>a pen and write their representatives to congress.
No, that solves nothing. It's time for Americans to take up arms again.
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/
JustForFun
True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
JustForFun
Detroit. What's that got to do with anything? Dumbass.
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> >> > It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write their
> >> >> > representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
> >> >> > zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
> >> >> > a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
> >> >> > congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
> >> >> > to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
> >> >> > the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.
> >> >>
> >> >> dumbass, the WTC site isn't owned by the U.S. Government.
> >> >
> >> >dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> dumbass, what the fuck does Diana Ross' backup singers have to with
> >> Ground Zero?
> >
> >dumbass, what city does "Motown" stand for?
>
> Detroit. What's that got to do with anything? Dumbass.
Clueless dumbass.
--Tedward
Rob Browning
As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
say?
--
Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.
Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!
Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc
"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"
Tom Enright
Rob Browning wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
> <justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
> As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> say?
Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
-Tom Enright
Aaron Ginn
> Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
> > <justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>
> > As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> > say?
>
> Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
May I introduce you to the Ninth Amendment?
--
"Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse."
-- Larry Wall
Rob Browning
wrote:
>
>
>Rob Browning wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
>> <justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> >True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>
>> As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>> say?
>
>Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people. It also
noted several areas of the constitution that support a right to
privacy (I don't think anyone would argue that we don't have such a
guaranteed right under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, among others),
which includes the qualified right for a pregnant woman to keep a
matter between her fetus and herself private.
Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope
Rob Browning wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2005 12:39:52 -0700, "Tom Enright" <freddy...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rob Browning wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
> >> <justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
> >
> >> As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> >> say?
> >
> >Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
>
> Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
> only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
> and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people. It also
> noted several areas of the constitution that support a right to
> privacy (I don't think anyone would argue that we don't have such a
> guaranteed right under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, among others),
> which includes the qualified right for a pregnant woman to keep a
> matter between her fetus and herself private.
> "Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
> only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
> and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people."
And THIS STATEMENT is where the problem lies.
IN THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT, a fetus is NOT a person. But JUSTICES are
NOT experts on the question of whether a fetus is a person. ANOTHER
court at ANOTHER time, with different justices, might come to an
entirely DIFFERENT conclusion on that question. Was the court advised
by a panel of doctors qualified to answer that question? If NOT, then
the court is making a judgement based on their own personal beliefs.
And personal beliefs have no place in a courtroom where Justices are
SUPPOSED to be IMPARTIAL in their judgement.
If, on the other hand, you dispute that judgement, and say a fetus IS a
person, you are taking away its' right to live. By aborting it, you
are violating its' Constitutional rights.
See the problem? YOU may say, "A fetus is NOT a person". I may say,
"A fetus IS a person". But NEITHER of us is qualified to MAKE that
judgement. NEITHER is a judge unless he\she has been advised by an
expert\experts in that field qualified to answer that question.
And here is ANOTHER problem:
"fetuses GENERALLY aren't considered to be people."
"Generally"?
THAT is an ambiguous term. Is one fetus a person, and another NOT a
person?
Either a fetus IS a person, or a fetus is NOT a person. It is ONE or
the OTHER. You can't pick & choose which ones are and which ones
aren't.
I certainly hope that this was merely your summary of the decision, or
the Roe v Wade decision is even MORE of a travesty then even I believed
it was.
Smart Ape misses the BIG WIGGLE
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- "Ever notice that at the start of a cartoon, Casper has no friends, and
by the end, he has some. Yet, in the next cartoon, he's friendless again?
Therefore, I think Casper is a soul-sucking-vampire-ghost."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- Space (Animal) Hero #1 of the 1950's and 60's
Aaron Ginn
Whoa! Zippy the Pinhead posts on RSFC!
--
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-- Sir Winston Churchill
Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> Whoa! Zippy the Pinhead posts on RSFC!
Apparently, so does a dumbass.
Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope
Smart Ape misses the BIG WIGGLE wrote:
> I propose a statue of General Ursus ripping the spine of a human.
I second that emotion.
the Bede
"Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope"
>
> IN THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT, a fetus is NOT a person. But JUSTICES are
> NOT experts on the question of whether a fetus is a person. ANOTHER
> court at ANOTHER time, with different justices, might come to an
> entirely DIFFERENT conclusion on that question. Was the court advised
> by a panel of doctors qualified to answer that question?
>
you are an ignoramous.
Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope
My religion's got nothing to do with it.
JustForFun
<pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
><justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>><nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>>
>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>
>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>say?
Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
larger tax base from it.
The Supreme court long ago stopped interpreting the Constitution and
started re-writting it.
Tom Enright
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> "Tom Enright" <freddy...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> > > say?
> > Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
> May I introduce you to the Ninth Amendment?
No need, it's a short one, easily remembered. I don't see
the right to an abortion or the right to privacy either.
-Tom Enright
Aaron Ginn
> Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
> > "Tom Enright" <freddy...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > > As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> > > > say?
>
> > > Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
>
> > May I introduce you to the Ninth Amendment?
>
> No need, it's a short one, easily remembered. I don't see
> the right to an abortion or the right to privacy either.
That was the point.
Rob Browning
Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope" <tit...@marcocable.com> wrote:
>
>
>Rob Browning wrote:
>> "Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
>> only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
>> and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people."
>
>
>
>And THIS STATEMENT is where the problem lies.
>
>
>IN THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT, a fetus is NOT a person. But JUSTICES are
Yes. That's why we call them "judges."
Rob Browning
<justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
><pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
>><justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>><nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>>
>>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>>say?
>
>Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>larger tax base from it.
I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
state and local governments _can't_ do it.
Tom Enright
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> "Tom Enright" <freddy...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
> > > "Tom Enright" <freddy...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > > Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
> > > May I introduce you to the Ninth Amendment?
> > No need, it's a short one, easily remembered. I don't see
> > the right to an abortion or the right to privacy either.
> That was the point.
That splains why it might be legal in some states, I'm not sure
why it would be in all. Seems to my non-legal mind that if you
go by the Ninth, and say that the right isn't "enumerated" in
the Constitution it must be handed over to the people and if the
people, or their elected representatives ,say "no", at the state
level, than that's the way it should go.
-Tom Enright
Dave Wallen
"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q2u7d15slfju9nf7i...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:23:02 -0500, JustForFun
> <justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
> ><pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
> >><justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
> >>><nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
> >>
> >>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> >>say?
> >
> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >larger tax base from it.
>
> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Edward M. Kennedy
> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >larger tax base from it.
>
> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation."
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
blacks.
--Tedward
Ford Prefect
"Edward M. Kennedy" <nos...@baconburger.com> wrote in message
news:db124i$sm2$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
> Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
> blacks.
Reading is fundamental. Go back and read the thing again, Ted.
Edward M. Kennedy
> > Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
> > blacks.
>
> Reading is fundamental. Go back and read the thing again, Ted.
Dumb ass -- the Dred Scott case was a legal precedent that
prevented blacks from being citizens. As non-citizens they
could be legally screwed by states, counties and towns.
The 14th fixed that.
Read the first link in findlaw's annotation of the 14th:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/#annotations
--Tedward
Ford Prefect
> " Ford Prefect" <ford.p...@oldschoolmotherfucker.com> wrote
>
> > > Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
> > > blacks.
> >
> > Reading is fundamental. Go back and read the thing again, Ted.
>
> Dumb ass -- the Dred Scott case was a legal precedent that
> prevented blacks from being citizens.
The Dred Scott CASE is NOT the 14th.
Like I wrote before, go back and COMPLETELY read it again. And remember,
words have very specific meanings in the legal realm, dumbass.
Edward M. Kennedy
> > > > Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
> > > > blacks.
> > >
> > > Reading is fundamental. Go back and read the thing again, Ted.
> >
> > Dumb ass -- the Dred Scott case was a legal precedent that
> > prevented blacks from being citizens.
>
> The Dred Scott CASE is NOT the 14th.
True, the 14th supercedes the Dred Scott case,
which ruled blacks were not and could not be
citizens, even freed blacks.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#1
Mind you, this is not the *only* reason it was
passed, which makes sense because the 14th
adresses more than one issue.
> Like I wrote before, go back and COMPLETELY read it again. And remember,
> words have very specific meanings in the legal realm, dumbass.
Lessee...should I trust my opinion and Findlaw's,
or some schmuck slinging insults on the Usenet?
--Tedward
Ford Prefect
> " Ford Prefect" <ford.p...@oldschoolmotherfucker.com> wrote
>
> > > > > Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
> > > > > blacks.
> > > >
> > > > Reading is fundamental. Go back and read the thing again, Ted.
> > >
> > > Dumb ass -- the Dred Scott case was a legal precedent that
> > > prevented blacks from being citizens.
> >
> > The Dred Scott CASE is NOT the 14th.
>
> True, the 14th supercedes the Dred Scott case,
> which ruled blacks were not and could not be
> citizens, even freed blacks.
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#1
>
> Mind you, this is not the *only* reason it was
> passed, which makes sense because the 14th
> adresses more than one issue.
Yes, it does. Such as the removal of certain rights granted by previous
admenments to the Constitution and more specifically, the federalization of
all citizens (or as the feds are so fond of labeling - RESIDENTS) at the
cost of states rights.
>
> > Like I wrote before, go back and COMPLETELY read it again. And remember,
> > words have very specific meanings in the legal realm, dumbass.
>
> Lessee...should I trust my opinion and Findlaw's,
> or some schmuck slinging insults on the Usenet?
>
> --Tedward
>
>
I think you'll find, dumbass, that you started hurling the insults first.
The hypocrisy of the ultra ________ (fill in the blank) was never more
evident than in your previous utterance.
Rob Browning
<nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>> >larger tax base from it.
>>
>> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>
>"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>just compensation."
I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
anywhere in there.
Rob Browning
wrote:
That's in the Declaration of Independence, and irrelevant besides
(note how it doesn't use Locke's original list of life, liberty, and
property).
Edward M. Kennedy
" Ford Prefect" <ford.p...@oldschoolmotherfucker.com> wrote
> > > > > > Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
> > > > > > blacks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reading is fundamental. Go back and read the thing again, Ted.
> > > >
> > > > Dumb ass -- the Dred Scott case was a legal precedent that
> > > > prevented blacks from being citizens.
> > >
> > > The Dred Scott CASE is NOT the 14th.
> >
> > True, the 14th supercedes the Dred Scott case,
> > which ruled blacks were not and could not be
> > citizens, even freed blacks.
> >
> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#1
> >
> > Mind you, this is not the *only* reason it was
> > passed, which makes sense because the 14th
> > adresses more than one issue.
>
> Yes, it does. Such as the removal of certain rights granted by previous
> admenments to the Constitution and more specifically, the federalization of
> all citizens (or as the feds are so fond of labeling - RESIDENTS) at the
> cost of states rights.
So the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
blacks?
> > > Like I wrote before, go back and COMPLETELY read it again. And remember,
> > > words have very specific meanings in the legal realm, dumbass.
> >
> > Lessee...should I trust my opinion and Findlaw's,
> > or some schmuck slinging insults on the Usenet?
>
> I think you'll find, dumbass, that you started hurling the insults first.
> The hypocrisy of the ultra ________ (fill in the blank) was never more
> evident than in your previous utterance.
The first insult was you claiming I hadn't read it.
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pfa8d1h7vkcho3tvr...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
> <nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
> >"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >> >larger tax base from it.
> >>
> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
> >
> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
> >just compensation."
>
> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
> anywhere in there.
There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
with the distinction "public"? The lack of power is an
active right, and vice-versa.
Why did they bother with the tenth amendment? Granting
unremunerated powers to states does not grant the enumerated.
The people do have the right to vote eminent domain into
their Constitutions, as most States have. I bet most have
a public use restriction too.
--Tedward
Ford Prefect
Gosh, Ted. I wouldn't thinking a guy that could kill an intern he had
knocked up would be so sensitive.
Edward M. Kennedy
> wouldn't thinking a guy that could kill an intern he had
> knocked up would be so sensitive.
Rsfck sensitivity. Not my fault she couldn't swim.
--Tedward
Rob Browning
<nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pfa8d1h7vkcho3tvr...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>> <nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>> >> >larger tax base from it.
>> >>
>> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>> >
>> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>> >just compensation."
>>
>> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
>> anywhere in there.
>
>There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
Yes, which means that the federal government can't do it. You have to
look at the Connecticut state constitution to see whether or not local
governments in Connecticut can do it, and that's not the SCOTUS' job.
JustForFun
<pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:23:02 -0500, JustForFun
><justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
>><pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
>>><justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>>><nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>>>
>>>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>>>say?
>>
>>Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>>land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>>larger tax base from it.
>
>I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>state and local governments _can't_ do it.
So your contention is that anything that isn't forbidden by the
Constitution is, therefore,Constitutional, then?
JustForFun
<pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
><nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>>"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>>> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>>> >larger tax base from it.
>>>
>>> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>>> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>>
>>"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>>just compensation."
>
>I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
>anywhere in there.
You don't own any land, do ya?
So what determines "just compensation" when your private property is
being taken for commercial use? Commercial property is FAR more
valuable. Also, what's the compensation for DE-valuation of the
portion of your property that is left as it's value will drop like a
rock as soon as a commercial project is erected.
The taking of private property for private use so long as it benefits
gov't to do so is incredulous. I'm as pro-business as anyone you'll
find, but this ruling is beyond stupid. With this ruling, a home
you've lived in or a business that has supported you for years can be
taken simply because a national restaurant chain wants to build on the
property...then it can be taken from THEM when Wal-Mart decides they
want to build a super-store there. This kind of nonsese will ruin the
heartland of America.
A few years back, 5 miles from here, a developer tried to buy a coupla
thousand acres to build a Disney World sized amusement park. I was
REALLY hoping it would go through as my property value would have
quadrupled immediately, but the old farmer refused to sell. That's his
absolute RIGHT, IMO. With this ruling, they'd simply TAKE his property
(and mine) to build on and we, the land owners, would be the ones
screwed in the process.
"Just compensation" equates to current market value. I would NOT sell
my property to ANY business for current market value. As it was
before, Wal-mart would have to negotiate with ME to purchase MY
property. A property I've spent many hours and dollars improving to my
tastes, but not neccessarily increasing the actual value of. They
would have had to compensate me in what I thought was a fair manner or
fuck off.
With this ridiculous ruling, all they have to do is get the local
gov't to take it from me.
Thankfully, in this State, we already have several bills up for
consideration that would prevent this ruling from affecting us.
Roe V Wade was NOTHING compared to the potential of this ruling
dividing this country.
Ford Prefect
Fuck. No sentence structure flames. I'm getting old, Ted.
Have another drink on me.
JustForFun
<pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:03:37 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
><nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pfa8d1h7vkcho3tvr...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>> <nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> >
>>> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>>> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>>> >> >larger tax base from it.
>>> >>
>>> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>>> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>>> >
>>> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>>> >just compensation."
>>>
>>> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
>>> anywhere in there.
>>
>>There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
>
>Yes, which means that the federal government can't do it. You have to
>look at the Connecticut state constitution to see whether or not local
>governments in Connecticut can do it, and that's not the SCOTUS' job.
The SCOTUS' job IS, however, to protect American citizens first and
foremost. This decision did no such thing. It, instead, expanded
corporate interests.
Edward M. Kennedy
> > > wouldn't thinking a guy that could kill an intern he had
> > > knocked up would be so sensitive.
> >
> > Rsfck sensitivity. Not my fault she couldn't swim.
>
> Fuck. No sentence structure flames. I'm getting old, Ted.
> Have another drink on me.
[Burp]
--Tedward
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >> >> >larger tax base from it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> >> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
> >> >
> >> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
> >> >just compensation."
> >>
> >> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
> >> anywhere in there.
> >
> >There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
>
> Yes, which means that the federal government can't do it. You have to
> look at the Connecticut state constitution to see whether or not local
> governments in Connecticut can do it, and that's not the SCOTUS' job.
If they feds can't do it, neither can the states (14th).
Unless, as you say, the State Constitution specifically
authorizes it.
Fanks.
--Tedward
Rob Browning
<justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:38:09 -0400, Rob Browning
><pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>><nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>>>> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>>>> >larger tax base from it.
>>>>
>>>> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>>>> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>>>
>>>"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>>>just compensation."
>>
>>I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
>>anywhere in there.
>
>
>You don't own any land, do ya?
Nice of you to assume that I _like_ the idea of being able to take
people's property for basically any reason. Obviously anyone that
actually takes the time to read the Constitution is a commie pinko.
>So what determines "just compensation" when your private property is
>being taken for commercial use? Commercial property is FAR more
>valuable. Also, what's the compensation for DE-valuation of the
>portion of your property that is left as it's value will drop like a
>rock as soon as a commercial project is erected.
The Constitution says nothing about justly compensating people when
private property is taken for private use, either.
>Thankfully, in this State, we already have several bills up for
>consideration that would prevent this ruling from affecting us.
As it must be, since the only way to fix the US Constitution regarding
eminent domain would be an amendment (though in this case it would
likely have a very good chance of passing).
Rob Browning
The 14th Amendment only bars states from doing things that are
_explicitly_ denied in the Constitution. Otherwise, the 10th
Amendment allows states to do anything that isn't the responsibility
of the federal government.
>Unless, as you say, the State Constitution specifically
>authorizes it.
Right, but the 14th Amendment isn't relevant to that.
Rob Browning
<justfo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Regarding the US Constitution as relates to state and local
governments, yes.
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> >> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >> >> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >> >> >> >larger tax base from it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> >> >> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
> >> >> >just compensation."
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
> >> >> anywhere in there.
> >> >
> >> >There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
> >>
> >> Yes, which means that the federal government can't do it. You have to
> >> look at the Connecticut state constitution to see whether or not local
> >> governments in Connecticut can do it, and that's not the SCOTUS' job.
> >
> >If they feds can't do it, neither can the states (14th).
>
> The 14th Amendment only bars states from doing things that are
> _explicitly_ denied in the Constitution.
There is no "doing things denied" clause in the 14th. There
is, however, a "abridge the privileges or immunities" clause.
Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
allowable.
--Tedward
Rob Browning
<nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >> >> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>> >> >> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>> >> >> >> >larger tax base from it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>> >> >> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>> >> >> >just compensation."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
>> >> >> anywhere in there.
>> >> >
>> >> >There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
>> >>
>> >> Yes, which means that the federal government can't do it. You have to
>> >> look at the Connecticut state constitution to see whether or not local
>> >> governments in Connecticut can do it, and that's not the SCOTUS' job.
>> >
>> >If they feds can't do it, neither can the states (14th).
>>
>> The 14th Amendment only bars states from doing things that are
>> _explicitly_ denied in the Constitution.
>
>There is no "doing things denied" clause in the 14th. There
>is, however, a "abridge the privileges or immunities" clause.
Yes, the privileges and immunities that are found in the Constitution.
If it's not in the Constitution, then the 14th Amendment doesn't
apply.
>Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
>implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
>allowable.
If we could accept implication as law, then why have laws?
Edward M. Kennedy
> >Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
> >implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
> >allowable.
>
> If we could accept implication as law, then why have laws?
If a law says it's a moving violation to cross the double yellow
line, what does that mean when you do *not* cross the double yellow
line?
If a law says you may only kill someone in self defense, what does
that imply about killing someone for some other reason?
It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
you for it.
--Tedward
Rob Browning
<nos...@baconburger.com> wrote:
>"Rob Browning" <pluv...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
>> >implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
>> >allowable.
>>
>> If we could accept implication as law, then why have laws?
>
>If a law says it's a moving violation to cross the double yellow
>line, what does that mean when you do *not* cross the double yellow
>line?
It doesn't mean anything. If no laws say anything about not crossing
the line, however, it's legal by default, just as this case regarding
using eminent domain for private purposes is. Thanks for proving my
point.
>If a law says you may only kill someone in self defense, what does
>that imply about killing someone for some other reason?
It doesn't imply anything. It flat out says that killing outside of
self-defense is illegal. That's what the "only" is in there for, a
word that isn't in the eminent domain clause.
>It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
>took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
>you for it.
Yup.
Edward M. Kennedy
> >It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
> >took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
> >you for it.
>
> Yup.
Am-Zing! Know any other trolls who believe this?
--Tedward
Rob Browning
Why would you have to be a troll to believe it?
Edward M. Kennedy
> >> >It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
> >> >took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
> >> >you for it.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> >Am-Zing! Know any other trolls who believe this?
>
> Why would you have to be a troll to believe it?
There you go again.
--Tedward