Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh
Well when someone breaks into your house at 2 AM are you going to call a lawyer or use a gun to defend your property? Considering the Supreme Court just ruled a few years ago that a State can use eminent domain to seize personal property and give it to a private developer to increase tax revenues for the State (i.e. the public good - wink wink) the legal system is not doing much good either. People who live in cities and rent apartments don't understand this concept.
Now, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison just came over to enjoy some home brew on the front porch; I must tend to my guests...
|
Someone breaking into my house at 2 AM is obviously different. He'd get a round of buck shot into his chest and I would see to it that it's his last day on earth, then I'd call the police. Not so much because I don't want them taking my TV, not gonna shoot someone over that, I got insurance for that. If someone breaks into my home, I have no idea if they're there to take my TV or rape anyone in the home and I won't sit there and find out what his intent is either. You break into my home, I assume you have malicious intent and will act accordingly.
If you're mentioning what I think you're mentioning, the USSC case you're referring to happened in Connecticut, where the state tried to claim eminent domain on property in an economic redevelopment zone. They argued that the new development would be in favor of the public because it would create additional jobs, which would therefore increase tax revenue. You coincidentally left that part out. A shiny, new building brings next to squat in tax revenue if no one is in it. Arlington, VA faces that issue now since it has a relatively high vacancy rate (but what would I know about this stuff? I live in the city as you mentioned, not sure what that has anything to do with someone's ability to interpret something). Plus a part of the land would be used for public use. The USSC specifically said that if the land were to go to a sole private partner or individual, then it would've been unconstitutional.
Now, you can agree or disagree with the ruling (I happen to disagree with the ruling myself if I'm honest as I think it creates a dangerous precedent) but at least get it's merits accurate.
But to your point, shooting anyone or waving a gun around wouldn't of stopped them. Sometimes you lose in the court of law due to controversial interpretation of the Constitution, but that's how it works. The Constitution gave the USSC the power to interpret the Constitution and that's just what they did. Unfortunately nothing in the document guarantees that we'll agree with their interpretation.
Now, I ask again, what does all of this have to do with making hybrid cars make silly noises?