🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <230620052118341099%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, timcmay@removethis.got.net says...
>
>In article <btr1702-4E4D2C.22111223062005@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
><btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> True but it they ignored the 5th by saying that the somewhat vague term 
>> "public purpose" includes things like economic benefits and that the 
>> condemned land doesn't have to remain held in the public trust.
>> 
>> If the new amendment said that land taken by eminent domain could not be 
>> turned over/sold to private parties, it would be rather difficult for 
>> even this Court to define that phrase as allowing the exact opposite.
>> 
>> But even so, I do agree with you in principle that our Constitution is 
>> meaningless now. It's whatever the Court says it is, and if that means 
>> making up things that aren't even there (right to privacy) or ignoring 
>> things that clearly are (the 10th Amendment) in order to achieve the 
>> desired result, then the judiciary seems more than willing to do it.
>
>Local government are celebrating...freaking out. Every hotel complex
>they were contemplating, with lucrative kickbacks through obscure
>channels to themselves, is now back "in play." 
>
>Every shopping center, every coastal convention center, every "seniors
>housing," every "low income Section 14 Setaside complex" that was ever
>hindered by inability to acquire land is now "back in play." With
>lucrative kickbacks to those who steal the land.
>
>Hundreds of thousands of politicians are tonight plotting the acts that
>will earn them a sentence of death by people's justice. 
>
>--Tim May

Ah, Tim, things just wouldn't be the same here without your
ridiculously self rightousness and pompous, dramatic pronoucements
that we all know you don't have the balls to back up.

Nope, wouldn't be the same.

They'd be a lot better.

FW