Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Poohbah
"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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: 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.
11 posted on 06/10/2002 4:15:18 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson