You're missing the point. The constitution doesn't _allow_ the federal government to get involved in that sort of matters. Last thing we'd want is to just say "Oh, well, whatever, do whatever you want in the states", right?
Welcome to Usenet. Topic drift happens. Killfiles are a wonderful thing; you can block by subject, or by sender. If your usenet newsreading software doesn't support killfiles, find a better one.
Thank you Dave. I will ask my clever son how I should do it. If however someone returns to the original subject will I miss it? If I block senders I will miss your good self ;-)
John:
If that's how you want to do it, you should look into "Ignore thread" types of options. You can use that whenever you decide a thread is in an area you no longer care about. Very few ever return to their roots.
I see you are using the dreaded Outlook Express. I don't know if it has an ignore thread option. You might want to "upgrade" to something like Forte Agent (or to save money, Forte Free Agent).
That's not "splitting hairs" at all. Their non-ruling says only that this is not an issue for the federal court system to decide. That does not mean it is constitutional for a state to take private property, although it apparently is done all the time in nearly every state for the "right" reasons. It is the state's responsibility to determine what those right reasons are.
Personally, being a quasi-libertarian, I have a problem with the government taking personal property for any reason. But of course they never actually "take" it. They are required to provide "fair value" (whatever that means) for the taken property.
If the Supremes don't say it's unconstitutional, then it's constitutional.
There's taking and then there's taking. If the owner doesn't want to sell at any price but the courts rule that he must, he's being taken. Granted the owner will be compensated, but...
We have a local situation where a national retailer wants to build a new store on a block that's vacant or has nothing but condemned structures but there's one going business on one corner of the plot. That person doesn't want to sell. [There's the further twist that if the condemned adjacent building is demolished, the going business loses one its walls.]
The feds don't have the authority to decide things like that for the states, Everett. Do you want them trampling states' rights? You can't break down that barrier just for the times you want to.
But..., the SCOTUS has nothing to do with the legality of that.
This wasn't a states' rights discussion. It was a thread about whether there are protections against taking of private property by the government and the Supremes said that there isn't as much as some would like in the Federal constitution.
They do if it violates the "taking" clause (or any other part) of the U.S. Constitution.
Sure it is. The claim was made that the SCOTUS said it was fine. They said no such thing, because they can't, because it's not their call.
Yes.
That's quite a backpedal.
(sigh). Nevermind. Just think how much more effective your anger would be if it was directed at the right people.
Thank you Bob for your posting. I will look into your suggestions and appreciate your advice.
Someone else might have said that, but it wasn't me.
It can be if they want it to be and can find Constitutional "cover" for it. And since the Supremes determine what the Contitution says... How do you think the interstate commerce clause got stretched way beyond recognition to cover discrimination?
From what?
What anger is that?
On the mark Dave. We get all sorts of people who want to bend the rules when it's "right" to bend them in their interpretation. The rules need to be hard and fast. Any erosion just leads to more erosion. Too many people have lost sight of, or never had any understanding of, the founding principles of this country. The unwashed masses continue to give away their rights in the name of "good" and fail to stand up when their rights are taken in the same vein by those who tell stories.
Oh that the Founding Fathers could be brought back to lecture.
So anyway, did you sell the convertible? I notice it didn't reach reserve. Al
I have canvassed it to a number of people. While we're in the market for a convertible ourselves, unfortuanately red is not a colour choice we would consider.
Hmmm, I quite like red, as long as it's not going pink! Having said that I am not in the market for anything right now :-(
He's relisted it:-
ebay item 4628524807
Al
It was relisted, and sold to an ebayer in Germany. He is flying in with his girlfriend this Sunday, and taking a couple of days driving back with it.
Didn't make as much as I would have liked. But enough that I didn't feel too gutted.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.