The Governor of Oregon may soon have the power to seize private property during a state of emergency

well at least she's trying to get some legal justification for this shit
 
But hasn't government ( state, federal, whatever ) always had such powers ( to commandeer, etc. ) during an emergency?

Is this by any chance merely the fruit-loops in Oregon seeking to enumerate and clarify a collection of powers that already exist?

Now, mind you, there are all manner of variations on the theme, and compensation, and duration, etc., but can't they do that already?

I mean... the Constitution stipulates that no one should be deprived of property without 'due process'.

Does this not constitute 'due process'?

Seriously... looking for pros and cons of such a state of affairs.
 
Last edited:
The governor wants the power to go into private homes and remove food for the distribution of nutrition.
 
The governor will be grabbing up prime land in eastern Oregon. You know, where the RWNJs are predominant.

Better git yer guns.

(Only a weasel would throw the insurgents he sent to the Capitol to attempt his coup, under the bus by blaming them for everything, AND saying they should be severely punished.)

.
 

Forum List

Back
Top