Judge declares smoking bans consitiutional

[Larkinn]

It really is no wonder why Kelo V New London turned out the way it did with this kind of erosion of personal property rights.

Actually they mostly just followed precedent, mostly from a case in 1937. The erosion is taking a long time then I guess, eh?

 

[Shogun]

A precedent that would not have been relevant had we been clearer about property rights versus wanton legalism.


Don't worry though... ID is a platform issue that you'll see again. so too is smoking as you find your far left mentality sacrificed to the same wolf we throw the far right.

 

[Larkinn]

A precedent that would not have been relevant had we been clearer about property rights versus wanton legalism.

Wanton legalism? Like, you know, reading what the US Constitution says? BTW, that trumps property rights.

Don't worry though... ID is a platform issue that you'll see again. so too is smoking as you find your far left mentality sacrificed to the same wolf we throw the far right.

ID isn't going away with a Constitutional amendment, and the government isn't going to vote for that.

 

[Shogun]

Wanton legalism? Like, you know, reading what the US Constitution says? BTW, that trumps property rights.


Ahh.. so Scotus didn't INTERPRET the law so much as read "there are no property rights" in the Constitution, eh?

gotcha..

Clearly, every scotus in the history of the US has been correct every time. In fact, nothing has ever been overturned or appended with legislation too. Gosh, gomer.. you are rock solid today!


ID isn't going away with a Constitutional amendment, and the government isn't going to vote for that.


hehehe... yea... bet your house on that.... ID abuse is a raging fire for people of both sides of the political fence. In fact, if you support kelo v new london you are in the stark minority.


But it's cool. You are to the left what pat robertson is the the right and America has a way of correcting itself accordingly.

 

[Larkinn]

Ahh.. so Scotus didn't INTERPRET the law so much as read "there are no property rights" in the Constitution, eh?

gotcha..

Umm, no. Not at all. Do try reading.

Clearly, every scotus in the history of the US has been correct every time. In fact, nothing has ever been overturned or appended with legislation too. Gosh, gomer.. you are rock solid today!

Nice non sequiter.

hehehe... yea... bet your house on that.... ID abuse is a raging fire for people of both sides of the political fence. In fact, if you support kelo v new london you are in the stark minority.

I'll bet my house on it. Rage all you want about some things, they aren't going to change. Gee, governments are going to really give away their right to use imminent domain for the public good. Right If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.

But it's cool. You are to the left what pat robertson is the the right and America has a way of correcting itself accordingly.

Not quite. But you've never been very good at figuring out what I believe even when I flat out state it.

 

[Shogun]

Umm, no. Not at all. Do try reading.


im gonna give you one more chance before I pounce on you like a puma taking down a wild boar...

So, the KELO V NEW LONDON decision Was NOT an interpretation rather than a Constitutional statement? Specifically in rebuttal to:

Wanton legalism? Like, you know, reading what the US Constitution says? BTW, that trumps property rights.

?

fucking crack heads.. I tellya.


Nice non sequiter.

It's a valid observation for those who think that Kelo V New london is that last word on the rape of property rights. Maybe you are too shallow to catch the deep fish.


I'll bet my house on it. Rage all you want about some things, they aren't going to change. Gee, governments are going to really give away their right to use imminent domain for the public good. Right If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.

Well, you can believe what you want. Clearly, you've got your finger on the pulse of America.


Not quite. But you've never been very good at figuring out what I believe even when I flat out state it.

dude, you are as clear as transparent gets. You may thing that you are some mysterious guy but that is simply not the case. If the users of USMB were put in a bell curve of political affiliation you and far right nutters would be at least 4 standard deviations from the mean.

 

[Larkinn]

im gonna give you one more chance before I pounce on you like a puma taking down a wild boar...

So, the KELO V NEW LONDON decision Was NOT an interpretation rather than a Constitutional statement? Specifically in rebuttal to:

It was an interpretation of Constitutional text which, after being interpreted, is then taken to be what that text means. However the Constitution does protect property rights and SCOTUS did not read that "there are no property rights" in the Constitution.

It's a valid observation for those who think that Kelo V New london is that last word on the rape of property rights. Maybe you are too shallow to catch the deep fish.

Cause we were talking about it being the last word on property rights? No? Oh wait, then it was a non-sequiter. Hey, what a coincidence.

Well, you can believe what you want. Clearly, you've got your finger on the pulse of America.

The legal pulse? Yes, I have a bit of an idea of whats going on in the legal world considering I am in it far too much.

dude, you are as clear as transparent gets. You may thing that you are some mysterious guy but that is simply not the case. If the users of USMB were put in a bell curve of political affiliation you and far right nutters would be at least 4 standard deviations from the mean.

I'm not mysterious at all, you just have reading comprehension issues.

 

[Shogun]

By July 2007, 42 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. 21 of those states enacted laws that severely inhibit the takings allowed by the Kelo decision, while 21 others enacted laws that place some limits on the power of municipalities to invoke eminent domain for economic development. The remaining eight states have not passed laws to limit the power of eminent domain for economic development. [16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London#Congressional_reaction





clearly, you know what you are talking about.

 

[Anguille]

Wow, that's a pretty stupid ruling, IMO. The workers and vendors have a choice. I would imagine this could also be applied to strip joints if taken far enough. What if the employees are exposed to naked people? Or gambling...isn't that an addiction now? How many innocent blackjack dealers might become gambling addicts?

When OSHA determines that nudity and gambling are hazards that employees need to be protected from you might begin to have an argument. I suppose you think the textile mills of New England ought never have been made to comply with health regulations to reduce high levels of lung disease in factory workers. Goodness knows, the workers had a choice.

 

[jillian]

Does a county judge even have jurisdiction to find something constitutional or not?

 

[Larkinn]

By July 2007, 42 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. 21 of those states enacted laws that severely inhibit the takings allowed by the Kelo decision, while 21 others enacted laws that place some limits on the power of municipalities to invoke eminent domain for economic development. The remaining eight states have not passed laws to limit the power of eminent domain for economic development. [16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London#Congressional_reaction





clearly, you know what you are talking about.

And how many of them got rid of imminent domain?

Oh wait, none.

Thanks.

 

[Larkinn]

Does a county judge even have jurisdiction to find something constitutional or not?

Yes, but only state law. Almost all cases start at the bottom of the totem pole and then if they are important enough get appealed.

 

[jillian]

Yes, but only state law. Almost all cases start at the bottom of the totem pole and then if they are important enough get appealed.

I think adjudging the constitutionality of something is an equitable remedy. Most county courts (like NY's Civil Courts) don't have equitable jurisdiction and you have to go to State Court for equitable remedies.

 

[Larkinn]

I think adjudging the constitutionality of something is an equitable remedy. Most county courts (like NY's Civil Courts) don't have equitable jurisdiction and you have to go to State Court for equitable remedies.

Hmm I think I assumed that county courts were just another type of state court . I think I'm a bit over my head here, Civ Pro hasn't prepared me for this.

 

[Special Ed]

The Federal government uses the Interstate Commerce Clause from the US Constitution to get at nearly every business, no matter how small. The entire 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on the Interstate Commerce Clause because without it, there was no way to prohibit discrimination by a private restaurants, bars, or stores. The Interstate Commerce Clause is a catch-all, because it basically says that the US Government can regulate anything that affects "interstate commerce". That has been stretched to include selling goods from out of state, selling to customers from out of state, or thinking about a relative who lives out of state.

In this case, the Supreme Court wasn't deciding the power of the federal government but of a state government. Because the constitution expressly states that all powers not given to the fed are reserved for the states, states usually have the power to make their own laws, provided that they afford at least the minimum protections afforded under federal law.

State laws have made smoking illegal under certain situations. Because there is no federal law protecting smokers or smoking (other than the millions paid to federal lawmakers by big tobacco), states basically have free reign to ban smoking so long as there is a reasonable basis for doing so.

Basically, Big Tobacco needs to spread their money around better, now filling up the coffers of state legislators and even city council members. C'mon Phillip Morris, stop complaining and pay up!

 

[Gunny]

Oh wah wah wah, somebody lit a smoke. Cry me a river. Maybe with enough crying you'll lose 5 or so of those 100 unwanted pounds that offend the shit out of me every time I have to look at your fat, nasty ass pull up in a gasd-guzzling SUV, waddle out, and start whining cuz someone lit up.

Your fat ass is gonna die of heart failure long before anyone does of second or even first hand smoke. Or choking on a turkey leg.

Whiners.

 

[Larkinn]

Oh wah wah wah, somebody lit a smoke. Cry me a river. Maybe with enough crying you'll lose 5 or so of those 100 unwanted pounds that offend the shit out of me every time I have to look at your fat, nasty ass pull up in a gasd-guzzling SUV, waddle out, and start whining cuz someone lit up.

Your fat ass is gonna die of heart failure long before anyone does of second or even first hand smoke. Or choking on a turkey leg.

Whiners.

Actually this was a suit against a smoking ban. So i guess you think they are whiners because Oh wah wah wah, they can't smoke, eh?

 

[Gunny]

Actually this was a suit against a smoking ban. So i guess you think they are whiners because Oh wah wah wah, they can't smoke, eh?

Nope. I think the anit-smoking pussies are ... well ... pussies. There wouldn't be a suit against a smoking ban if some diaper=wearing whiners weren't crying their little eyes out.

 

[Anguille]

Actually this was a suit against a smoking ban. So i guess you think they are whiners because Oh wah wah wah, they can't smoke, eh?

I hate it when they wheeze and whine at the same time.

 

[Anguille]

Nope. I think the anit-smoking pussies are ... well ... pussies. There wouldn't be a suit against a smoking ban if some diaper=wearing whiners weren't crying their little eyes out.

Go sulk in the corner, gunny sack. Suck your thumb if you need to but if you want a cig, you're gonna have to chew them. Get used to it.