In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......


Me a rightwinger, just left of Nazi........a bit.....

"Me" wrote
"Jim Carter" wrote:
Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your
house
for a private development?"

Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......

Where does the Constitution forbid or limit Eminent Domain? Not saying it's
fair but unless there is some prohibition in the Constitution or in
underlying common law then "real Constitutional judges" would have to rule
as the majority just did.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:58:49 -0700, Me wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......


Me a rightwinger, just left of Nazi........a bit.....

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

I guess, "facts" don't matter to those who create their own reality.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere wrote:


Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

In point of fact, 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans.

Rehnquist - Nixon - elevated by Reagan
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - GHW Bush
Thomas - GHW Bush
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:56:53 -0700, thunder wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere wrote:


Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

In point of fact, 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans.

Rehnquist - Nixon - elevated by Reagan
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - GHW Bush
Thomas - GHW Bush
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

Thanks for the correction, which, of course, makes my point even MORE
poignant.