"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:08:07 GMT, wrote:


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


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


"dave weil" wrote in message
news:mv5gt1pf0c090tgubvj7rj88orlb1q1g3a@4ax. com...
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.

Well, that's going to take one of two things - an amendment to the
Constitution (and that's unlikely, since it's specifically enumberated
in the Bill of Rights, *or* your second option, which requires action
by The Supreme Court. And it's ironic that you don't want judges
"tampering" with that very document. I assume that you only want them
to tamper with it when it suits your wishes, since they just recently
reaffirmed the doctrine of eminent domain.

I want it tampered with when it is to help protect individual liberty,
something ED does not do.

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?

I meant in regard to eminent domain.

Actually, they made it worse.

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

See above.

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.

You were referring to how he interprets the Constitution. The
constitutionality of minent domain was a very recent court decision.
Why shouldn't I bring it up?


Since, you appear to hav a couple of active brain cells and know that I was
speaking in a different context, or am I giving yo too much credit?

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.

Apparetnly it means that it dependson which side of the issue YOU come
down on.

I come down on the side of individual liberty.

If it's something that you disagree with, they should play
with the constitution. If it's something that you agree with, the
document is sancrosanct.

See above.

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

I could have guessed you wouldn't know.

I could have guessed that you wouldn't be able to detect a rhetorical
question when it's posed.

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.

Well then, shouldn't a justice like Alito not be a "strict follower of
the Constitution" if it's not a "perfect document"?

Yes, the changes are up to the Legislative bodies.