Well, I think that's a bit of a stretch. It doesn't sound all that different from private land developments. And while it may be pursued in ignorance of the constitution, the constitution is not used as a misguided justification by a court.
That is what I was talking about. But I'm sure you know that already.
But if it does goes through, can we count on you taking it to court and challenging it on constitutional grounds that you've cited?
That's what the courts are for, and that's where it would come into play.
It would be interesting to see how that turns out.
Excuse me? This is about a government agency.
And while it may be pursued in ignorance of the constitution, the constitution is not used as a misguided justification by a court.
Ignorance my butt. They intend to cash in at landowners' expense until the game is called off. There is no way the victims will ever recover the cost. It's happened that way so many times I seriously doubt it's unintentional.
But if it does goes through, can we count on you taking it to court and challenging it on constitutional grounds that you've cited?
As you know full well, it will take decades and millions to complete such a case while injustices aplenty run amok. Most of the folks who get screwed will have had their life savings effectively taken and couldn't finance such a case. As for me, I would have to have standing in the case and don't live in that area. Thus it would be impossible for me to bring it, your cynical and flippant answer notwithstanding.
That's what the courts are for, and that's where it would come into play. It would be interesting to see how that turns out.
I remind you of Campaign Finance Reform. Ignoring stupid laws while expecting the Supremes to fix it is horrible government. That you tacitly support it, especially the violation of the principle of representative governnmet itself, speaks volumes about your integrity as an American citizen.