Private Homes may be taken for public good

[J.A. Terranson]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, A.Melon wrote:

> > >Maybe you should take another look at who voted how.  The Bushies
> > >dissented on this opinion.  Go figure.
> >
> > Not surprising at all.  The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by
> > members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the SC's
> > decisions of the early-mid 20th century (esp. the Social Security Act and
> > the expansion of the Commerce Clause during FDR's reign).
>
> The conservative justices happen to be correct about that. If there is
> a need for expansion of federal power, the solution is to pass an
> amendment, not to read into the commerce and general welfare clauses
> what was never there.

What the hell are all of you smoking?  This court has *talked* about
restricting inappropriate use of the commerce clause, but when it comes to
*doing*, they're 100% behind 100% Federal expansion *through* the Commerce
clause.

Doesn't anyboy actually LOOK at whats going on anymore, or are we all
fixated on what these slimballs *say*?

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org
0xBD4A95BF


"Never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public
plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to
the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always
be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by
predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty."

Joseph Pulitzer
1907 Speech