1 posted on
10/28/2005 8:41:42 PM PDT by
Calpernia
To: mr_hammer
2 posted on
10/28/2005 8:43:11 PM PDT by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Calpernia
Has this Priest never heard of the commandment: "Thou shalt not covet?"
If there is any Freeping to be done--it should be directed against this Christian. He may have more of a conscience than does a politician.
3 posted on
10/28/2005 8:50:14 PM PDT by
Sue Bob
To: Calpernia
"The school built a new field last year ... it is 7 yards smaller than required by sports regulations"
In Shop Class didn't they teach you "Measure twice, cut once"?
To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
9 posted on
10/28/2005 9:21:48 PM PDT by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
To: Calpernia
This is not right and does not serve the greater public good.
10 posted on
10/28/2005 9:22:40 PM PDT by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
To: Calpernia; Coleus
EVIL! My mother's hometown is the heart of darkness, and this is yet another example of a long line of land grabs by the city government in the name of "urban renewal" that has been going on since the 1940s. They tore down most of the shopping district in my mom's old nabe to build an "industrial park" that attracted no industry.
13 posted on
10/28/2005 9:28:29 PM PDT by
Clemenza
(Gentlemen, Behold!)
To: Calpernia
Under truly ancient precedent, at least to Roman Law, the Sovereign has the right of eminent domain.
Nowadays the government is the agent of the Sovereign, which is, in this country, the people (at least theoretically). Therefore the government exercises the Sovereign will, the will of the people, when it exercises eminent domain.
These laws are deeply fundamental. The Supreme Court said, essentially, that these laws were in effect when the Constitution was written and long before that, and so could not be unconstitutional. BUT the Sovereign people having the right of eminent domain could give it up, abolish the government's right to exercise eminent domain in the name of the Sovereign people.
Clear enough? The people have the right of eminent domain. The people have the right to tell their servant, the government, that the government may not excise eminent domain.
20 posted on
10/29/2005 12:50:13 AM PDT by
Iris7
("Let me go to the house of the Father.")
To: Calpernia; Coleus; jocon307; Question_Assumptions
Finally! An eminent domain ruling I can agree with!
There is nothing worthwhile about the Golden Cicada and it needs to be extracted from Grand St.
Go Maroon Marauders!
26 posted on
10/29/2005 10:38:42 AM PDT by
Incorrigible
(If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
To: Calpernia
Thou shalt not steal includes having someone else steal what you're after for you.
29 posted on
10/29/2005 10:52:20 AM PDT by
spunkets
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson