Judge Napolitano Ask What If......
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Thats an excellent post WK.... I often ask myself and others what would we be like if the federal government actually were held to what it was constitutionally allowed to do and no more...
I refuse to listen to this blowhard. FOX has turned an educated man into a blethering idiot. His laughing, his constant hatred for our goverment and his attempts at making everything a constitutional matter are nauseating. The king of cable exaggeration, the judge.
Where was he on eminent domain when BUSH introduced it to america?? Oh YEAH, HE SUPPORTED IT.
Peace.
Last edited:
What if this maroon was a hypocrite?
Bush executive orderOn June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[SUP][15][/SUP] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.
The judge supported bush's actions with respect to eminent domain while bush and his colleagues took personal property during his administration.
I laugh at this two faced sell out maroon.
Peace.
Bush executive orderOn June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13406 which stated in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." The order limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[SUP][15][/SUP] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the federal government.
The judge supported bush's actions with respect to eminent domain while bush and his colleagues took personal property during his administration.
I laugh at this two faced sell out maroon.
Peace.
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Keep the federal government to what is constitutional and it doesnt matter who says it. Both parties are to blame and to all the people who vote for the popular one.
The problem with the judge and the constitution, is he is only on the side of the constitution when the democrats are in office, and when the republicans are in office, he looks the other way.
In KELO, he said it best, when it comes to property, the goverment can take it, the only issue then becomes what value does it have, and the owner of the property will have to go to court to establish a value for the property, and that value has to be set by the goverment.
In other words, he sides with goverment in the taking of peoples property ( as the king did in england) and the person owning the land would have NO SAY. The goverment would then seize the property and begin using the land for whatever purpose while the owner of the land is forced to sue the goverment in order to be compensated.
How does this reconcile with his positions of "smaller goverment", or "goverment intrusion" or "goverment being able to take from it citizens"?
This buffoon will say whatever FOXED SPEWS tells him to say.
Peace.
Lol, it really didn't matter who this thread was about. TOS started the name-calling (as usual) just based upon that person being associated with Fox!
Easier to take than the truth?
moreluck
golden ticket member
solar panel people are different!
Similar threads
