Well, the stuff Hillary wrote as an ignorant yoot certainly seems to define what she is now. 
Posted on 08/19/2005 8:41:48 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
Heads up.
Yeah I just saw that... Thanks.
Heads up!
Thanks again for both of your comments.
heads up
In the words of Mark Twain, "Do not get drunk on the smell of somebody else's cork."
John / Billybob
See my post earlier in this thread. In short, this is a tempest in a teapot.
J / BB
No offense, but why would you? Bush doesn't care anything about property rights or he would have come out strongly against the decision and advocated an amendment. For some reason the only thing that matters enough to push for an amendment is flag burning and gay marriage.
Remember, republicans have appointed 7 of the 9 current justices. We can't blame Clinton or the democrats for what the SCOTUS has become.
As long as abortion is such a hot button issue, we will continue getting this crackpot justices.
You do realize that this is kind of a big issue right?
BTTT!!!!!!!
"Just compensation" is based on the notion of the social compact. A compact is when parties surrender the exact same things in exchange for the exact same benefit. The bargain must always be in equilibrium. Under the compact, a man's "estate must be made whole" for any loss due to a taking for the benefit of the whole in order to maintain equilibrium.
Declaration of the Convention of Delegates from the towns of Lynn, Salem, Danvers, Wenham, Manchester, Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury-Port, Salidsbury, Methuen, Boxford and Topsfield held at Ipswich in the County of Essex reacting to the proposed 1778 Massachusetts constitution. - Essex Result, 1778 (excerpts.)
"When men form themselves into society, and erect a body politic or State, they are to be considered as one moral whole, which is in the possession of the supreme power of the State. This supreme power is composed of the powers of each individual collected together, and voluntarily parted with by him. No individual, in this case, parts with unalienable rights, the supreme power therefore cannot controul them. Each individual also surrenders the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, only when the good of the whole requires it. The supreme power therefore can do nothing but what is for the good of the whole; and when it goes beyond this line, it is a power usurped. If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of controul he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrender is void, and the supreme power as it respects him is an usurper...."
"It has been observed, that each individual parts with the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, only when the good of the whole requires it; he therefore has remaining, after entering into political society, all his unalienable natural rights, and a part also of his alienable natural rights, provided the good of the whole does not require the sacrifice of them. Over the class of unalienable rights the supreme power hath no controul, and they ought to be clearly defined and ascertained in a Bill of Rights, previous to the ratification of any constitution. The bill of rights should also contain the equivalent every man receives, as a consideration for the rights he has surrendered. This equivalent consists principally in the security of his person and property, and is also unassailable by the supreme power; for if the equivalent is taken back, those natural rights which were parted with to purchase it, return to the original proprietor, as nothing more is true, than that allegiance and protection are reciprocal."
He wrote this article while he was still a law student!! Are we going to hold what people write as ignorant yoots over their heads as well? Unbelievable!
Well, the stuff Hillary wrote as an ignorant yoot certainly seems to define what she is now.
The activities of feminists over abortion laws in the states was a teapot tempest in the '60s.
""Mark Levine for SCOTUS!!!""
interesting you say that cuz Mark Levin supports John Roberts
""The odor of justice Souter wafts faintly on the breeze...""
you obviously havent been paying attention to what is in the Reagan era documents
Thanks, I am sure there is a lot of missing details from this analysis. Telling us a story about a bunch of poor old lady land investors doesn't quite paint the whole picture. I just don't believe this story is a very accurate portrait of what Roberts argued or believes and would not jump hastily to any conclusions.
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.