City Park Public Access

[duckydoty]

Thanks guys. I now have to clean my computer screen and keyboard after reading the last 2 pages of this thread. I burst out laughing after taking a drink of pop and sprayed it everywhere. Can I send the cleaning bill to anyone????

[FishinCricket]

Thanks guys. I now have to clean my computer screen and keyboard after reading the last 2 pages of this thread. I burst out laughing after taking a drink of pop and sprayed it everywhere. Can I send the cleaning bill to anyone????

Send it to Eric and Ness, they just took turns raping Johnny Cash!!!

[KATroutman13]

I don't know what about the constitution is political, in all reality it is a legal document. However, I know that marriage is political, even though it has a legal element in it. I would think that it would be in this fourms best interest to keep the topic on eminent domain and the 5th if we're going to talk about law. IMO. I hope that I haven't offended anyone, if I have then I want to make sure that everyone knows that it was not my intention.

TF,

For an individual who openly "hates" Justice Scalia, I find your assertion that the Constitution as, "in all reality a legal document" significantly off base. However, I understand that you are a law student (been there) and I know how you are surrounded by liberal peers, liberal professors and the hatred and vile spewed by Scalia is nonsense unfounded in legal precedent ... blah, blah, blah (been there too). Politics has been an insidious portion of the Constitution, going all the way to its drafting. The text of the document is replete with political compromise. Read the Federalist Papers, they illustrate exactly how politicized the drafting of the Constitution and the language it contined was, in reality. It is also funny, that the Federalist Papers themselves, have been the foundation for modern political arguments, including the Kelo case you aptly refer to in your earlier posts. If that crazy Scalia and those other strict constructionists had it their way, no such politics or parol evidence (Federalist Papers) would be allowed to interpret the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" which ultimately subjects it to interpretation de jure. Reading the Constitution as a purely legal document, as do the Thomas and Scalia types would not allow such random interpetations and the invasion of politics to erode or embelish upon those rights granted in the Constitution.

There is no doubt, especially on the heels of Kelo that the State of Missouri could exercise eminent domain and take an easement from the landowner permitting access to the property by the public. The saddest part about this specific "taking" is that the "just" compensation would be minimal because the individual is only losing their ability to exclude others from a very small portion of their land.

[troutfiend1985]

TF,

For an individual who openly "hates" Justice Scalia, I find your assertion that the Constitution as, "in all reality a legal document" significantly off base. However, I understand that you are a law student (been there) and I know how you are surrounded by liberal peers, liberal professors and the hatred and vile spewed by Scalia is nonsense unfounded in legal precedent ... blah, blah, blah (been there too). Politics has been an insidious portion of the Constitution, going all the way to its drafting. The text of the document is replete with political compromise. Read the Federalist Papers, they illustrate exactly how politicized the drafting of the Constitution and the language it contined was, in reality. It is also funny, that the Federalist Papers themselves, have been the foundation for modern political arguments, including the Kelo case you aptly refer to in your earlier posts. If that crazy Scalia and those other strict constructionists had it their way, no such politics or parol evidence (Federalist Papers) would be allowed to interpret the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" which ultimately subjects it to interpretation de jure. Reading the Constitution as a purely legal document, as do the Thomas and Scalia types would not allow such random interpetations and the invasion of politics to erode or embelish upon those rights granted in the Constitution.

There is no doubt, especially on the heels of Kelo that the State of Missouri could exercise eminent domain and take an easement from the landowner permitting access to the property by the public. The saddest part about this specific "taking" is that the "just" compensation would be minimal because the individual is only losing their ability to exclude others from a very small portion of their land.

You make me want to throw up on my laptop with that breathing document comment. Look, in the way that I was using the 5th Amendment I was referring to law and not a political view. Do you go to the court and propose "your honor, the constitution is but a political document?" I would really like to see the judge's reaction to that.

Yes, the constitution is a source of positive law, but that does not mean referencing necessarily starts a political debate. My view of Scalia has nothing to do with whether the Constitution is a form of political speech, rather it is my personal view of a justice that I do not think should sit with the other 8(oh god, now I'm referring to politics). And by the way, I did not bring up Scalia actively, you looked to my personal interests to draw that conclusion. I find it funny that you feel the need to snipe my position, accuse me of being ignorant of the federalist papers, and interject after I already explained that eminent domain can be used here.

And how was there any doubt Missouri could do this before Kelo? Yes, Kelo may be right on point with this issue, but it would be a government taking, and it would be for public use, so why are you even bothering to comment? Oh, to throw in the Federalist papers(which by the way I have read a few, so don't be so quick to jump to conclusions on my lack of knowledge). Its funny to me that I was making a stand that referring to the Constitution is not political, thus not inappropriate for this forum, while you specifically refer to the Federalist papers in which are a political form of communication.

So, KATroutman, what the heck was your primary purpose in posting? You didn't add anything that wasn't already said. All I see is you parroting my former posts in order to criticize my position while adding nothing new in the process. And to me, I find that funny

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief: Now we can add Jackwagon to Nancy Boy and dickweed. Keep 'em coming. I love the intelligent discourse.

I really thought you would see the humor in that.

And technically I didn't call you a dickweed. So I am only one name up on you. So call me another one and we will be even. Would that make you feel better Nancy Boy??

[Chief Grey Bear]

Hey TF'85, I just saw your interest. That is freaking funny!!!! You're a good sport. Keep it up buddy!!!!

[ness]

I really thought you would see the humor in that.

And technically I didn't call you a dickweed. So I am only one name up on you. So call me another one and we will be even. Would that make you feel better Nancy Boy??

Thanks for the green light, oh great one.

Not wanting to blow this opportunity, I have consulted one of the foremost resources for mean names. Someplace I'm sure you're familiar with:

Cheezus.com/mean

so, here I go:

Chief ... you're a

pale-toed sphincter jockey!

[ness]

Hey KA, TF -- let's try to keep this thread on track.

Geez.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Someplace I'm sure you're familiar with:[

Nope. I do all of my own work.

Hey KA, TF -- let's try to keep this thread on track.

Geez.

That is funny coming from you. You have not contributed one bit to this thread.

[troutfiend1985]

Hey KA, TF -- let's try to keep this thread on track.

Geez.

And your previous post was on topic? I like you ness, but treat me to the same level that you are treating yourself.