This is a step in the right direction.
According to this article from Reuters the House has already voted in favor of the limitation.
Frankly, what I'd like to see in Congress is a push to amend the Constitution to put an end to this expansion of condemnation powers made by the Supreme Court. A lot of people are unhappy about the ruling and the outrage crosses party boundaries. I believe such an amendment would have a good chance of going all the way.
Its hard to imagine anyone mounting any sort of reasonable opposition to it. This isn't about partisan politics, this is about what's best for the country.
Rob Port is the owner and operator of Say Anything.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Politics
Comments (6)
Did you see what Nancy Pelo... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Will Franklin | June 30, 2005 11:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Did you see what Nancy Pelosi said:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49773
Looks like she wants to make it into a partisan issue.
1. Posted by Will Franklin | June 30, 2005 11:35 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 30, 2005 23:35
2. Posted by kbiel | June 30, 2005 11:39 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I don't see how an amendment to the 5th amendment is going to help. It's just a band-aid. The real problem are the courts. The words "public use" in the 5th amendment seem pretty clear to the average person, it is only the judges who can't seem to find their Webster's. What congress needs to do is find their cojones and start impeaching judges who are clearly no longer interpreting the law, but are making sh*t up. Failing that, an amendment to give wider powers to congress and/or the president to remove judges might do the job.
2. Posted by kbiel | June 30, 2005 11:39 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on June 30, 2005 23:39
3. Posted by likwidshoe | July 1, 2005 12:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The words "public use" in the 5th amendment seem pretty clear to the average person, it is only the judges who can't seem to find their Webster's.
Yep. They've taken the words "public use" to mean "public benefit".
3. Posted by likwidshoe | July 1, 2005 12:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 00:59
4. Posted by JD | July 1, 2005 1:37 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, apparently Rep. Pelosi believes that when the Supreme Court speaks, it is as if it is from God. That last chemical peel and face lift must have friend the 4 neurons she had left firing.
4. Posted by JD | July 1, 2005 1:37 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 01:37
5. Posted by BR | July 1, 2005 5:27 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Agree with Kbiel and others above - making changes to the Constitution is like re-writing a classic book because an illiterate couldn't read it, or altering valid, workable laws against theft or murder because a thief or murderer didn't want to comply with them.
5. Posted by BR | July 1, 2005 5:27 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 05:27
6. Posted by FloridaOyster | July 1, 2005 8:02 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Will Franklin: Pelosi was very careful to withold her opinion other that to let us know she equates Supreme Court decisions with those of God? She did not answer the question. Twice.
I know a couple Californians that have relocated to Florida and they both hate Pelosi, love Boxer and are ambivalent about Arnold. How they can reconcile all three of these opinions still eludes me.
6. Posted by FloridaOyster | July 1, 2005 8:02 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 1, 2005 08:02