posted
Looks like eliminating tax (sales tax?) on food, and a law preventing the use of eminent domain that the Supreme Court decided was acceptable.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, a state law would only be a minor roadblock against the state itself doing it. The sure protection is a Constitutional amendment (I suggest in the form of a requirements to first initially only be used by a government, and second to not be sold to private interests within some minimum term, say, 10 years).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We already have an amendment. The 5th. But the Supreme Court chose not to read it that day. But there is still room for each state to fix it.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh… I guess that is a good point. Though any attempt to change that state law would be met with fierce resistance and an automatic vote for the opponent I would imagine.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
