Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dubyaismypresident

Just reading over the decision, it seems as if the court was unwilling to trump the state precedent for ED already in place. Isn't that the good people of CT's fault for having such a provision in place?


1,096 posted on 06/23/2005 6:30:04 PM PDT by Craven Moorhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies ]


To: Craven Moorhead

>>> Isn't that the good people of CT's fault for having such a provision in place?

How is it the people of CT's fault? I don't think CT gets to vote on these provisions. I know we can't in my state.


1,100 posted on 06/23/2005 6:33:59 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1096 | View Replies ]

To: Craven Moorhead
Just reading over the decision, it seems as if the court was unwilling to trump the state precedent for ED already in place. Isn't that the good people of CT's fault for having such a provision in place?

In a pre 14th Ammendment America that would be true. But since the 14th makes the Bill of Rights apply to the states too they should have to respect the 5th Ammendment and it's "public use" takings clause.

I take just a little comfort in the thought that most of the abuse will be in blue states like Connecticut.

1,101 posted on 06/23/2005 6:34:03 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (And our prisoners at Gitmo eat better than I do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1096 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson