The fun part here is that plaintiffs just set themselves up to get drop-kicked by the judge. To wit: anything not in the Constitution is outside the government's power. That is the 4th point in the briefing here.
Federal water projects are not IN the Constitution.
Therefore, the whole case is moot, because the plaintiffs are asserting title to something that was illegal to build in the first place. Therefore, a completely legal resolution would require the restoration of the Klamath River to its pre-Reclamation Project state and the return of land taken under eminent domain for the project to the rightful owners, or their heirs/assigns, and the return of land deeded over to the Feds by the State of Oregon. And the Green Peas freaks "re-wild" a river...with the help of the farmers who didn't WANT it returned to nature!
Actually you are once again wrong - but not for the reason you think.
Your cute attempt to skewer the poster with his "logic" is actually logical - but open to discussion and research. Did the Government, under the enumerated powers clause, have the authority to enter into this contract? I don't know - haven't done the research.
If you are truly willing to finally admit that the Constitution is a limiting document which specifically limits Federal Power by only authorizing that which is specifically enumerated therein then you have made much progress in your understanding of the document. I doubt that you have come to accept that truth and believe you are merely adopting that position for the sake of tweaking the posters to this thread.
But I digress...back to your quote that I posted and why it is wrong. Under contract law - at equity - the remedy in this case, assuming arguendo, that the government did not have authority to enter into the contract to begin with (again, I'm not taking a position on that issue), where the other party has fully performed on their part of the contract, is to force the Government to perform on it's part of the contract. If such a remedy gives rise to causes of action to other parties then the contract and the Court's ruling is admissible in those actions for monetary damages against the government to the aggrieved parties.
So, any way you hash it, legitimate contract or exercise of extra-Constitutional power, the Government would be forced to live up to the terms of the orginal contract which it has not done to date....Regards.
Hey Jeff, how's the family? Let me know if you get east tp my neck of the woods any time soon. Our hoped-for trip to Oregon is on hold this year - so we won't be able to get out your way.
God bless you and yours.