To: beejaa
Isn't this an ex post facto "taking" of private property without due process or just compensation? The terms and conditions of the mortgage didn't include these restrictions at the time of acquisition. They aren't part of the title either. It seems the EPA has overstepped the bounds of the Constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal government.
18 posted on
11/13/2009 1:45:30 PM PST by
Myrddin
To: Myrddin
U tok funny. Like some long-dead white slave-owning terrorist against the Crown of Englund guy or something. Don’t be a planet hater. /s
29 posted on
11/13/2009 2:05:01 PM PST by
TigersEye
(0bama is our first Port of Entry President - I hope he goes home.)
To: Myrddin
Of course it is, but that sort of quaint imagery is a distant memory to those kind of folks.
What would be constitutional, maybe, is requiring new construction to meet new terms. But what that would do is create a premium on older homes, exactly what they don’t want. This kind of thing is religion to them, and attendance in “church” is mandatory.
To: Myrddin
The problem is that we have a bunch of people in the government who don’t care about the Constitution. We need to keep making out voices heard...
44 posted on
11/14/2009 9:50:14 AM PST by
beejaa
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson