Replies

They could have simply informed the lower court that their understanding of the purpose of "Imminent Domain" is incorrect; That public need and usage does not extend so far as to allow them to seize property to give to someone else to use to make a profit, and thus indirectly stimulate the economy which might indirectly benefits the state.

So then you're saying it's proper for the U.S. Supreme Court to tell states how to handle things like eminent domain. That there are limits to what the 10th Amendment allows the states to decide for themselves.

Having a Federal Court point out to a State court that their understanding of the meaning of Imminent Domain is incorrect is not giving the Federal Government any new Authority over the state.

Sure it is. It's telling the state that they are not competent to interpret their own state constitution and that the federal courts have to do it.

It's insuring that the state recognizes and protects the long understood rights as outlined by the common law, and by specific protections in the Constitution and the Bill of rights.

You are saying that Connecticut cannot decide for itself what "public use" means. That the Tenth Amendment does not allow it do do that. That only the federal courts can decide that. Your view of what the states can and cannot do seems dependent on the whims of that "Fedzilla" you claim to dislike.

So again, if federal courts can tell the states what "public use" is then why can't they also tell the states what marriage is?

This is the same thing i'm currently discussing with Bubba Ho-tep. A Nation founded on Natural Law has natural law limits.

Sure it is. It's telling the state that they are not competent to interpret their own state constitution and that the federal courts have to do it.

And that is different how? Sic Semper.

Interpreting laws in accordance with a long held and common understanding is not FedZilla. Objecting to excess and overreach is one thing, while objecting to normal and proper behavior, is quite another. Fedzilla is improper behavior and excessive overreach. Normal functionality is not objectionable.

Connecticut was being "StateZilla", and FedZilla went along with it.

So again, if federal courts can tell the states what "public use" is then why can't they also tell the states what marriage is?

Marriage is not a Federal Issue. Taking away someones property against their will is a Federal Issue under the Bill of Rights and through the common law.