Can you really just ignore the constitution if you feel like it?

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,475
9,595
113
Washington DC
Actually, "supreme" and "paramount" are synonyms.

But you knew that.
I did, yes. But I prefer the real text. Wanna know why, exactly?

Because the Fifth Amendment says ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

And our clever Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) decided that "public purpose" and "public use" were synonyms, which led to seizure of private property for "urban renewal." This thread of reasoning has continued, and eroded property rights more and more, through Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 269 (2005), when the Supremes held that the fact that a new owner of the property (a developer) would produce more tax revenue for the city than the multi-generational homes that stood on the property was sufficient "public purpose" to condemn and confiscate those homes and the land.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,475
9,595
113
Washington DC
As some clever lad said, "If the left treated the Second Amendment the way they treat the rest of the Bill of Rights, gun ownership would be mandatory.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Catholic School funding has been an issue since confederation.

Basically the Catholics get to pay for both systems. But they go to Heaven - so it's it's all good.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I did, yes. But I prefer the real text. Wanna know why, exactly?

Because the Fifth Amendment says ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

And our clever Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) decided that "public purpose" and "public use" were synonyms, which led to seizure of private property for "urban renewal." This thread of reasoning has continued, and eroded property rights more and more, through Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 269 (2005), when the Supremes held that the fact that a new owner of the property (a developer) would produce more tax revenue for the city than the multi-generational homes that stood on the property was sufficient "public purpose" to condemn and confiscate those homes and the land.

Yep.

But your lawyer bona fides are showing again. :)

Although your rationale is a good one.