"Well, that means that the Klamath Falls Project was itself unconstitutional and that the facilities need to be demolished posthaste, with all land taken by eminent domain for the project returned to their rightful owners, heirs, or assigns, and all land held by the the State of Oregon prior to the Klamath Falls Project being returned to the State."
Hardly.
9 posted on 06/10/2002 4:12:03 PM PDT by nightdriver
I fail to see where the Constitution authorizes the building of water projects. The plaintiffs' brief says that those actions not permitted by thre Constitution are forbidden. I'm just taking the plaintiffs' claims to their logical conclusion.