Supreme Court today this should make for good discussion

[02_WHITE_TJ_X]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/church___state_issues

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050627/...s_file_sharing

[TObject]

http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

[John]

Originally posted by TObject
http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html

Now this I like!!!!!!!!

[Bruce David]

Huuuu????
I must be missing something here.
You like the fact that someone can take your property from you,
if they use it to make a profit????

[John]

I like the guys answer to it. Stick it to the guy that say's that it's the law with the very law that's getting stuck to the rest of us.

[Bruce David]

gotcha.

[Croaker]

I happen to agree with the Court: this is a state/local issue, and the state or local government is in a much better position to make the decision than 9 folks in robes in Washington.

Note that I disagree with Connecticut's position on the matter. And that you folks in California have a state law that would prevent something like this from happening.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by Croaker
I happen to agree with the Court: this is a state/local issue, and the state or local government is in a much better position to make the decision than 9 folks in robes in Washington.

No - its a constitutional (federalist) issue as the rights of the government to take land are spelled out in it.

I'll also give you an example that I have provided to others on the state and local points. Take the shiathole of Buffalo New York which recently defaulted. Now that in of itself is no big deal except that Buffalo already defaulted and was under the jurisdiction of a local control board which now with the second default, goes to a state control board. To spell it out - there is no local representation making decisons on behalf of the residents. Buffalo is effectively under the jurisdiction of the state until something like 2030.