Posted on 04/29/2008 11:20:59 AM PDT by mek1959
Bump for your excellent post.
No, Mr. Williams is observing that treason has already been committed - by those entrusted with carrying out the powers of the Constitution. It is not treason to inform the usurpers that they have no legitimacy when they force upon us their will outside of what the Constitution permits them to. It is not treason to say, with force if need be, "enough!" and stop cooperating with their extra-Constitutional use of force to compel us to do that which the Constitution has not empowered them to do.
They are choices and in America on presidential general elections they are choices between TWO people.
Wrong. We have more than two choices including not voting for either one and leaving it blank or voting for a third party candidate. If McCain, the party's maverick, can vote on the basis of conscience and principle over party, so can I. I will not vote for anyone whose policies will destroy this country. Amnesty will destroy this country with a stroke of a pen. McCain is the Amnesty King. I won't vote for Hillary/Obama for the same reason.
No. They upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court that the redevelopment of Fort Trumbull satisfied a 'public purpose'. Since the Constitution does not define public use then it is up to the states to define it for themselves, for better or worse.
From the opinion: The question presented is whether the city’s proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Also from the opinion: "In affirming the City’s authority to take petitioners’ properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a “public use” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek."
The Supremes did not decide that the state or municipality can arbitrarily define what constitutes a public use.
They did. As the above quote makes clear they leave the question of defining public use in the hands of the state and local governments. Where it belongs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.