"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:37:02 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:32:34 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:47:34 GMT, wrote:

Hopefully, he will be as advertised, a strict follower of the
Constitution.

I guess this means that he agrees with the concept of eminent domain,
a principle that's *explictly* confirmed by the 5th Amendment of the
Constitution.

This must make you sick to your stomach...

That the government can take away people's property? Absolutely.

So, the Constitution makes you sick to your stomach.

Figures..


It figures that you will try and put a spin of your own on anything I say.

Spin? I don't know how you can call this spin. You hope that a member
of the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution, a document that
explictily allows a principle that you are vehemently opposed to.


Which allows for changes. I would hope at some point, that Eminent Domain
would be abolished or at least severly restricted.

Perhaps as with Roe Vs. Wade, someone will come up with something that
will
make it possible to realize how bad and anti freedom such an idea is.

Baaaad Constitution. Bad, bad, bad...

No, good Constitution, it allows for changes, because they knew it wasn't
perfect, it was a compromise in some cases, but a damn sight better than
the
Articles of Confederation.

Well, they haven't changed it, have they?

What do you call the Amendments? Seems to me they used to think that it was
possible for their to be 3/5 of a person. That's still there?

In fact, wasn't it you
raving recently about the fact that the Supreme court just reaffirmed
the 5th Amendment's approval of eminent domain. I suppose that Judge
Alito would do the same, if he's a strict constructionist.

Probably. Obviously I wasn't referring to something you already knew I was
opposed to.

That it has stood the test of so much time with so few changes is
testament
to how good it is, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Of course for
Liberals it hardly counts at all, since they continually refer to it as,
"a
living breathing document." Forgetting of course that the way to change it
is not through stupid court decisions, but through the ammendment process.

Apparently, you don't think that court decisions are the way to affirm
it either.

That depends on the case, but of course you knew that.

What in the heck do we even NEED those stupid courts for
anyway?

I could have guessed you wouldn't know.

Sorry that you think it's OK to force people off their property for any
governmental whim, and even worse now that they have decided that it's IK
to
do it for things like a new strip mall or whatever the **** they think is
better than a persons home.

Unlike you, apparently I believe in the Constitution and the
principles that it enumerates.

As do I. I just don't beleive every single thing in it is perfect.