Owners of land taken over by feds (EPA) getting day in court (Supreme Court to take case)

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 28, 2011 | Bob Unruh

[WilliamIII]

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider a determination by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that it controls what happens on a privately owned parcel of residential land in Idaho and the landowners must do its bidding.

The EPA had warned the owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, they could be fined millions of dollars if they disobeyed the federal officials' instructions to undo the preliminary construction work they had begun on what was supposed to be their dream house. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they would have to go through a $200,000 government application process even to get a judicial review of the decision.

But that changed when the high court notified the Pacific Legal Foundation, an organization working on behalf of the Sackett family, that it had accepted the dispute for review.

Read more: Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=316361#ixzz1QbjaIa6g

[bert]

Ok, ok...... I’m old you know. Half of what I know is obsolete and no longer matters.

[griswold3]

Constitution ‘reflected fundamental flaw
of this country that continues to this day’

“Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America”

Thomas Sowell
July 4th

[More than a hundred years ago, so-called “Progressives” began a campaign to undermine the Constitution’s strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on all the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven’t really changed much in a hundred years.

The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example
of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution: “Does it still matter?”

]

evidently not, else we’d be up in arms, led by the US Congress..

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..

[Ken H]

Don't count too heavily on SCOTUS. This is their current view on the extent of the New Deal Commerce Clause:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

J. Scalia, concurring in Gonzales v Raich