3 REASONS WHY THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD BE BUILT...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Its part of the Bill of Rights, if you don't like it work to get the amendment repealed, it can and has been done before. I've already been through the "taken" part with you, yet you continue to use that inaccurate term. You either agree with the Constitution, or you don't.

.

You do realize that the SC interprets the Constitution as it see's fit. It was constitutional to own slaves...

So that document is only as good as the Justices appointed to the Court are. And that varies from person to person. So the trick is getting Justices in the Court that agree with your/my POV.

'' nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ''



Fairly ambiguous statement, would you not agree.

[Chica Chaser]

It was constitutional to own slaves right up until December 6, 1865 when the 13th amendment was adopted. Exactly as the system was designed, nothing for the court to interpret there.

Yes its ambiguous, as are most statements in the Constitution. You keep arguing the concept of Eminent Domain, rather than the "just compensation" part. For the record I see nothing in the statement about a requirement "for the public good" either, only "for public use".

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

It was constitutional to own slaves right up until December 6, 1865 when the 13th amendment was adopted. Exactly as the system was designed, nothing for the court to interpret there.

Yes its ambiguous, as are most statements in the Constitution. You keep arguing the concept of Eminent Domain, rather than the "just compensation" part. For the record I see nothing in the statement about a requirement "for the public good" either, only "for public use".

What ''public use'' is oil from Canada sold to China for the United States? Does the ''public use'' clause mean China?

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Yes its ambiguous, as are most statements in the Constitution. ".

Which renders the thing pretty damn useless unless you pack the Court with Justices that agree with your/mine interpretation of it. Right?

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

It was constitutional to own slaves right up until December 6, 1865 when the 13th amendment was adopted. Exactly as the system was designed, nothing for the court to interpret there.

".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

So all men were not created equal ...until Dec 6, 1865?

It was designed by the people in power to stay in power, nothing much has changed. The oil Companies are very powerful, if they want your land to run a pipeline through for the 'public good' of Canada and China and a few powerful people in this country, they will do it and have people argue what a great Constitution we have!

[rioseco]

Just hurry up and get it over with. Go on and give away all our chance at independence on mid-eastern oil. Then keep sending hundreds of millions in aid and weapons to extremist as in Egypt. Close all doors on capitalism and lets just see what we have left of the USA.
I wonder if I can power my home with 1 billioin of those plastic pinwheels on a stick. Can I safely drink water from that retaining pond next door since I will not be able to afford the electricity to pump from the aquifer below me. Lets get that gasoline up to six or eight bucks because four dollars just aint high enough. As soon as Obama harnesses lightning,wind and solar then we will all be drinking that free bubbly and eating that rainbow stew he promised.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by rioseco

we will all be drinking that free bubbly and eating that rainbow stew he promised.

Man, I never thought I'd see a Merle Haggard reference in here! Nicely played.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Man, I never thought I'd see a Merle Haggard reference in here! Nicely played.

I was wondering where I'd heard dat!

[CuteOldGuy]

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Great Merle!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez24yjqRGLs

[gnadfly]

Chica Chaser, if I buy Lifetime Premium Access, do I get Moderator Concierge service with it too?

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

It was constitutional to own slaves right up until December 6, 1865 when the 13th amendment was adopted. Exactly as the system was designed, nothing for the court to interpret there.

Yes its ambiguous, as are most statements in the Constitution. You keep arguing the concept of Eminent Domain, rather than the "just compensation" part. For the record I see nothing in the statement about a requirement "for the public good" either, only "for public use".

So what you are saying is the slaves were Eminent Domained without compensation to the slave owners?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

People forget that irony is my strong suit. I cursed with it, much like JD with his throat expanding love of hot weenies!

You don't have a strong suit. You're weak in all areas.

Originally Posted by WTF

You do realize that the SC interprets the Constitution as it see's fit. It was constitutional to own slaves...

One of those weak areas is Constitutional history. Slavery wasn't constitutional because the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as it saw fit. It was constitutional because the words of the Constitution explicitly acknowledged the legality of slavery. The justices had no choice.

Here is the 3/5ths Compromise in Article 1, Section 2, explaining how slaves are to be counted for voting purposes:
------------------------------------
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons".
------------------------------------

Here is Article 4, Section 2, which says a state must return an escaped slave to the slave owner:
---------------------------------------
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due".
--------------------------------------

If the Justices had tried to declare slavery unconstitutional (i.e., as they saw fit), they would effectively have nullified these provisions. The Justices interpret the Constitution as it applies to real world cases. They don't get to redraft it.

You make the common mistake of confusing "constitutional" with "good" or "righteous". It doesn't mean that. It merely means that something is in accordance with (i.e., does not violate) the constitution.

Originally Posted by WTF

'' nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ''

Fairly ambiguous statement, would you not agree.

No, I would not agree. Prior to Kelo, there was never much dissension on what "public use" meant - and that goes back centuries - even prior to the Constitution.

Kelo was an "ends justifies the means" decision by "progressive" justices to help big government raise tax revenue.

The mere raising of money for the government becomes a public "use". Just like a road or railroad or a park. You know real stuff that is actually "used" by private citizens. Catch that not-so-sleight of hand?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

What ''public use'' is oil from Canada sold to China for the United States? Does the ''public use'' clause mean China?

Actually, it's fairly simple to understand.

A pipeline is a piece of transportation infrastructure - just like a railroad or a highway.

If there is no problem with using eminent domain to give land to a privately owned railroad company, why is there a problem with a pipeline?

The country already has many 10s of thousands of miles of pipeline, all built through the mechanism of eminent domain and all of them owned and operated by profit-making companies. And a lot of those pipelines are already being used or have been used to ship oil and/or LNG out of the country.

The government doesn't put restrictions on where freight can be sent when it exercises eminent domain. If it did, many of those project wouldn't get built in the first place.

And there is nothing inherent in the Keystone pipeline that says it's oil MUST go to China. That is only the current projection. I'm sure over the multi-decade lifetime of the pipeline, the oil will go to many different places (including the US) as market conditions change. Just like every other pipeline in the country.

The bullshit argument about China is a red-herring.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Chica Chaser, if I buy Lifetime Premium Access, do I get Moderator Concierge service with it too?

So what you are saying is the slaves were Eminent Domained without compensation to the slave owners?

No concierge service, sorry.

I don't know if the slave owners were compensated somehow when the 13th went into effect. Good question.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

No concierge service, sorry.

I don't know if the slave owners were compensated somehow when the 13th went into effect. Good question.

Nope. The 13th Amendment simply illegalized slavery. It was specific. That trumps whatever general implications the Takings Clause might have had.

There was no taking for a public use. The freed blacks weren't going to be "used" by the public of anyone else - that was the whole point of the 13th Amendment. So no compensation.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, I would not agree. Prior to Kelo, there was never much dissension on what "public use" meant - and that goes back centuries - even prior to the Constitution.

Kelo was an "ends justifies the means" decision by "progressive" justices to help big government raise tax revenue.

The mere raising of money for the government becomes a public "use". Just like a road or railroad or a park. You know real stuff that is actually "used" by private citizens. Catch that not-so-sleight of hand?

You make my point.

and have people argue what a great Constitution we have

Originally Posted by WTF

What ''public use'' is oil from Canada sold to China for the United States? Does the ''public use'' clause mean China?


Which renders the thing pretty damn useless unless you pack the Court with Justices that agree with your/mine interpretation of it. Right?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

So all men were not created equal ...until Dec 6, 1865?

It was designed by the people in power to stay in power, nothing much has changed. The oil Companies are very powerful, if they want your land to run a pipeline through for the 'public good' of Canada and China and a few powerful people in this country, they will do it and have people argue what a great Constitution we have!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Actually, it's fairly simple to understand.

A pipeline is a piece of transportation infrastructure - just like a railroad or a highway.

If there is no problem with using eminent domain to give land to a privately owned railroad company, why is there a problem with a pipeline?

Maybe because railroads were like highways back then

The country already has many 10s of thousands of miles of pipeline, all built through the mechanism of eminent domain and all of them owned and operated by profit-making companies. And a lot of those pipelines are already being used or have been used to ship oil and/or LNG out of the country.

The government doesn't put restrictions on where freight can be sent when it exercises eminent domain. If it did, many of those project wouldn't get built in the first place.

It does put restrictions on what can be shipped. We do not ship arms to other countries without government approval. You missed that point.

And there is nothing inherent in the Keystone pipeline that says it's oil MUST go to China. That is only the current projection. I'm sure over the multi-decade lifetime of the pipeline, the oil will go to many different places (including the US) as market conditions change. Just like every other pipeline in the country.

Yes you are correct, Big Oil will sell oil to the highest bidder...they do not give one shit about this country's needs. That was my point. Dipshit.

The bullshit argument about China is a red-herring.

I got your red herring...