[Filo]

That’s one less item I need to think about on my absentee ballot. . . :)

[rockinqsranch]

“It purports to protect property rights against eminent domain, but it actually provides almost no protection.”

Personally I think that the biggest clue for the clueless is that Schwarzenegger backs 99. Hello!

ATTN ALL CALIFORNIANS: READ THE TWO PROPOSITIONS. DON’T RELY ON THE GAZILLION MAILERS DUMPED IN YOUR MAILBOX TO KNOW THAT PROPOSITION 99 IS A SCAM.

NO ON Prop. 99.

[Amendment10]

The U.S. Supreme Court created a huge political backlash when it ruled that local governments could use eminent domain to seize private property and transfer it to other private owners for "economic development."

The USSC did nothing wrong by the federal Constitution when it decided Kelo in favor of the state.

The reason that the MSM got its panties bunched when the USSC decided Kelo in favor of the state is because the MSM swallows its own politically correct perversions of the Constitution. And the reason that the MSM was able to spook the people with the USSC's "wicked" decision is because neither do the people understand what the Constitution says - or doesn't say - about the eminent domain powers of the states.

The main constitutional misunderstanding with Kelo is that, unless otherwise stated, all general prohibitions on government power in the federal Constitution apply only to the federal government, not to the state governments.

For example, consider that, unlike the 5th A., Sec. 1 of the 15th A. explicitly prohibits both the federal government, aka the United States, and the states from prohibiting people from voting based on race.

15th Amendment, Sec. 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

So regardless that the 5th A. limits the federal government to buying private land for public use, the states don't need an excuse to buy private land. But the states are finally wising up by making state laws to protect private property from state eminent domain grabs.

[TXnMA]

We need a Federal law stating:

"Raising revenue" is not a legitimate purpose of any Federal, State or local governmental entity. Specifically, "raising revenue" is not a legal justification for any taking by eminent domain.