« Home | Flypaper Strategy » | grags on judges » | Social inSecurity » | Expanding the Patriot Act » | At the Next Fairfield... » | marijuana and the commerce clause » | media (mis)playing ball » | a French lesson » | Deuteronomy 6:4 » | Blessed Three in One »
Posted by philip | 12:36 PM | Permalink
Glad to see others infuriated at this decision and was hoping you'd comment, Phil.I "blogged" about it today as well. http://www.bkeithb.blogspot.com.
Posted by Keith |
June 23, 2005 12:58 PM
Yeah, this irritated me too. Weren't you just telling me just the other day about the Poletown decision in Michigan, and that it had been overturned? Does this change everything again?
Posted by A-Train |
June 23, 2005 2:20 PM
The Michigan Supreme Court recently overturned its Poletown decision, but the result was based on the Michigan constitution's takings clause, not the federal Constitution. It is always okay for the states to be sticter on such things, but they can't allow activity broader than that allowed under the U.S. Constitution (e.g., they couldn't remove the "just compensation" component). This means that, absent a switch at the U.S. Supreme Court (not likely once they set precedent like this), those hoping to win protection for economic rights must go to the states and ask them to give their own takings clauses more narrow interpretations. A difficult task, but not impossible.
Posted by philip |
June 23, 2005 3:41 PM
It is rediculous how the Government continues to interfere with the lives of people, both public and private. The people need protection, guidance, etc., but not stalking, seizing, etc. The Government is growing too powerful for its own good.
Posted by Daniel Brown |
July 04, 2005 11:07 AM