Re: The proposed amendment

Italy Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:59:50 +0000, kz8rt3 wrote:
>
>
>>In article <42BBFCCB.2AE1183@yahoo.com>,
>> Dweezil Dwarftosser <f4wcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"The term "public use", as written in the final clause of
>>>Amendment V specifically prohibits from eminent domain
>>>proceedings any property which will ultimately result in
>>>non-governmental ownership; and prohibits any taking of
>>>land by any entity for the primary purpose of increasing
>>>tax receipts or governmental fees."
>>>
>>>(Fifth amendment wording: "... nor shall private property
>>>be taken for public use, without just compensation.")
>>
>>"just compensation" could mean a better community.
>>
>>I think the ruling is sick but I don't think the supreme court missed
>>something so simple as the 5th amendment. The ruling did not have
>>anything to do with the federal government. It is strictly a states
>>issue. Ya know, states rights, like what the conservatives want. And
>>more capitalism, like what conservatives want.
>
>
> The Constitution's life time appointment didn't anticipate a lifespan that
> could incude Alzheimer's disease.
>
> Clearly, the Supreme Court is now populated by idiots.


For once the anonymous coward makes sense.

You gotta believe that this case is wrong when so many of us, who so
often disagree, agree on this.

--


"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:RMmdnXA6qeQGDCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com...

> > Clearly, the Supreme Court is now populated by idiots.

> For once the anonymous coward makes sense.

Had to happen.

Smart enough to use anonymous reamilers, he parallels the old axiom about
the blind squirrel finding a nut...

> You gotta believe that this case is wrong when so many of us, who so
> often disagree, agree on this.

Now we'll just see if we can dump the Republican/Democrat/Left/Right
bullshit and get together as Americans and shut this bullshit down.

Any bets?

In article <Pr0ve.765$sl.5374@news.uswest.net>, Scott
<pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote:

€ "dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
€ news:RMmdnXA6qeQGDCHfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
€
€ > > Clearly, the Supreme Court is now populated by idiots.
€
€ > For once the anonymous coward makes sense.
€
€ Had to happen.
€
€ Smart enough to use anonymous reamilers, he parallels the old axiom about
€ the blind squirrel finding a nut...
€
€ > You gotta believe that this case is wrong when so many of us, who so
€ > often disagree, agree on this.
€
€ Now we'll just see if we can dump the Republican/Democrat/Left/Right
€ bullshit and get together as Americans and shut this bullshit down.
€
€ Any bets?
€
€

Any suggestions?

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:240620051646583082%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...

> Any suggestions?

1) Everyone in this country doesnt drive, fly or turn on an electric device
for one single 12 hour period.

Nothing moves.

No trains, no planes, no SUV's.

No cell phone calls.

No one buys a single drop of gas.

No one goes to the store.

No one goes to UPS, FedEx or the USPS.

No one flies anywhere.

Have a block party, or hole up and eat MRE's.

No one works and pays taxes, buys anything and pays taxes, drives anywhere
and pays tolls or taxes.

1 simple day.

Scott wrote:

> "Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:240620051646583082%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...
>
>
>>Any suggestions?
>
>
> 1) Everyone in this country doesnt drive, fly or turn on an electric device
> for one single 12 hour period.
>
> Nothing moves.
>
> No trains, no planes, no SUV's.
>
> No cell phone calls.
>
> No one buys a single drop of gas.
>
> No one goes to the store.
>
> No one goes to UPS, FedEx or the USPS.
>
> No one flies anywhere.
>
> Have a block party, or hole up and eat MRE's.
>
> No one works and pays taxes, buys anything and pays taxes, drives anywhere
> and pays tolls or taxes.
>
> 1 simple day.
>
>
>
Never happen. And, tough to do anyway.

But a good idea.

Probably wouldn't do much anyway.

"A riot is an ugly thing...... And I think it is time we had one"



--
Your ridiculous little opinion has been noted.

My diesel truck has been modified to run on an environmentally friendly
mixture of clean burning Caribou fat and whale oil.

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:sKednbumrpZNPSHfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...

> > 1 simple day.

> Never happen. And, tough to do anyway.

> But a good idea.

> Probably wouldn't do much anyway.

> "A riot is an ugly thing...... And I think it is time we had one"

My mom told me about little girls and women gathering at church to peel the
foil off gum wrappers and cigarette packs to recycle the aluminum for the
war effort, aluminum that could be used to build airplanes.

We could do it easy; if freedom, justice and equality meant more to the
masses than the Escalade, cell phone and blow drier.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4q1ve.1467$BA6.7153@news.uswest.net...

> We could do it easy; if freedom, justice and equality meant more to the
> masses than the Escalade, cell phone and blow drier.

I'm up for it. Just let me park my Escalade and turn off my cell phone so I
can get my hair cut so I don't need the blow dryer anymore.

Hopefully my local dive shop will have recruited enough hamsters to run
their compressor.

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote in message
news:sKednbumrpZNPSHfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...

> Never happen. And, tough to do anyway.
>
> But a good idea.
>
> Probably wouldn't do much anyway.
>
> "A riot is an ugly thing...... And I think it is time we had one"

"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." --
Robert Frost

dazed and confuzzed wrote:


>> Clearly, the Supreme Court is now populated by idiots.
>
>
>
> For once the anonymous coward makes sense.
>
> You gotta believe that this case is wrong when so many of us, who so
> often disagree, agree on this.

It's not the ruling that idiotic, it's the result. The court's job is to determine
what the laws that have been written mean, not whether or not the result is "right".
This NG has often noted that there's little or nothing to prevent any given
jurisdiction from outlawing diving, but it would be pretty hard to justify a claim
that such a prohibition would be "right".

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.