Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Depends on exactly how the case came about. If it was someone fighting a law that said their city was allowed to do this then the opposite would be true.... a law that states private land cannot be emminent domained for private gain (which I believe Elphaba showed at least 1 justice claimed).
I can't see even SC saying that a local law in a case like this would be illegal and that the COnstitution allows private developers to take land. From what I gather it just upheld a local law.
|
I read the opinion to expand on an existing constitutional priveledge. Which in effect confirmed an existing local law, as opposed to striking it down.
I to am stumped.
I see it as perfectly reasonable for any locality, in Georgia for example, to challenge ANY Georgia State Constitutional provision that restricts this federal constitutionally permitted privledge.
For example, the first ammendment gaurantees a right to free speech, with clearly and narrowly defined exceptions...does this then mean that states can restrict speech further? In essense restrict or reduce this constitutional provision? If so how? Why?
I might have erred in ~my~ interpretation of this, as many of the pundits, talking heads and elites have asserted just that.
Baffled
That is why I am but a constitutional sophomore.
-bear