"You said you approve of carving out rights under states Constitution."
No, Peter, not at all....
What I said was that --- since the US Supreme Court had RULED in Kelo (a ruling that by the way, I DISAGREED WITH, and would like to see over-turned by the Supremes... but one that none-the-less represents the current expression of federal law under out FEDERAL Constitution) --- that I *approved* of the actions by various States acting to AMEND their OWN INDIVIDUAL STATE CONSTITUTIONS to ban the ability (newly recognized by Kelo decision) for local government authorities to seize property and then turn it over to private interests for commercial reasons.
Obviously, the various STATE CONSTITUTIONS do not affect in any way what is in the US federal Constitution, nor restrict it's application --- and, as ALWAYS, they apply purely only within their respective states.
So, there is no contradiction. (You wouldn't be proposing that the 50 states not have any constitutions at all, would you, Peter?)
The individual states have LONG been regarded as 'laboratories of Democracy' and so I am proposing nothing NEW whatsoever in the relationship between federal powers and state powers... you misinterpretation nonwithstanding....
"Then you said you prefer the Constitution be recognized as retaining all rights not specifically granted."
No, you are misquoting.
(I said that the federal Constitution, after enumerating a series of powers to be allocated to government, stated that 'powers not enumerated' were reserved for the PEOPLE. So, your misquote aside --- this too stands not in conflict with my other statement.)
"It appears the rest of us see the big picture."
(You might want to check your bifocals on that one.... :-) |
