To: bwteim
The notion of "Just compensation" seems at the heart of the matter. Would the default setting (definition) for that, BE "fair market value"?
Since only markets (supply and demand) DETERMINE "fair Market value," -- not the government, we certainly seem to have a legal conundrum here.
Just wondering if the two are roughly equivalent in terms of the law. Thanks.
69 posted on
06/24/2005 10:32:08 AM PDT by
4Liberty
(Loud music was played at Waco. So are Clinton & Reno = Hitler/Stalin/ Pol-Pot, Senator Durbin?)
To: 4Liberty
A better legal mind (actually, any better mind) than mine would have to address your conundrum. I will ask my divorce attorney in the meantime... ;)
By the way, it's not polite to quote from DU but here's one posting. Mispelling included:
"2. On this particualr ruling, I prefer to put the blame where it belongs. As often as we DUers complain that the RW uses the "they all do it" as justification for something totally outrageous, I think I'll avoid doing that in this instance. Unless there's something buried in the decision to change my mind, I think the RW nuts on the court got it right."
70 posted on
06/24/2005 10:37:46 AM PDT by
bwteim
(Begin With The End In Mind)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson