[redgolum]

A start. To bad it wouldn't hold up in court.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't believe you have any grounds for maintaining that this proposal would not hold up in court. Some states already have similiar protections. Remember the picture of the little house surrounded by a multi-story luxury hotel because the little old lady wouldn't sell and they couldn't take it. New Jersey maybe, I can't remember where it was for sure.

[Arkinsaw]

A start. To bad it wouldn't hold up in court

I believe it would. The USSC ruling doesn't demand that states play fast and loose with property rights.....it just says they can. If they decide not to they can do that.

[oceanview]

it would hold up actually, but having to restore property rights for non-public use in a battle across every state - alot of people are going to fall short. governments want this power.

[Gabz]

A start. To bad it wouldn't hold up in court.

Why wouldn't it hold up in court? Even in this outrageous deciision it was stated this is a state/local issue to be decided at that level, not the federal courts.

[republicofdavis]

It would hold up in court because it's an amendment. Courts don't have the power to strike down a validly-enacted amendment (at least they havn't taken it yet).

[Gabz]

A start. To bad it wouldn't hold up in court.

Why wouldn't it hold up in court? Even in this outrageous deciision it was stated this is a state/local issue to be decided at that level, not the federal courts.

[Now_is_The_Time]

A start. To bad it wouldn't hold up in court.

It isn't meant to. McClintock is just trying to score some political points. This decision is the best thing to happen for his career in a long time.