I am not arguing that it is right, I am merely arguing that it is the current state of the law.

Bottom line: Takings cases reached their high water mark in the cable TV case I referred to above

i try not to think about it. it is a real and very great danger - which you describe well.

As President, that option is no longer available. There is a lot that he can push off onto Congress, and the Presidency is likely to cede a great deal of its authority to Congress under the Obama administration because of that. But when confronted with a crisis that is wholly within the Executive branch, he cannot avoid having to make a decision, take a position, and stand by the results. Furthermore, these results will have consequences, and mistakes may have to be paid for in blood. Every head of state faces this, but I am not convinced that he has the courage to do so.

I’m thinking, for example, of something along the nature of Russia deciding to carve out and annex a piece of The Ukraine. Or simultaneous rocket launches by terrorists against lesser-defended US Consulates. Or the continued slow-motion implosion of the European economies with the attendant riots spreading to our shores. These scenarios are for the Executive to deal with; not the Legislature.

What will he do? In my estimation he will try very hard to do nothing. He will dither; he will consult; he will speak grand, mellifluous words; he will get very busy at other things. But he will not confront the issue head on - and that indecisiveness will launch an era of agony. The US withdrawal from world affairs in the aftermath of Viet Nam was a principle driver behind the Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Grenada, in Angola. The failure to rescue our diplomatic hostages from the Iranians, giving up on them after a single, botched attempt, empowered the Middle East to become the unstable, nearly uncontainable threat that has so far cost us over 4,200 deaths, $600-billion, and has profoundly and needlessly complicated our foreign relations, even among our allies.

I have not seen a demonstration of his mettle. Or, more appallingly, perhaps I have. I greatly fear the damage to this nation that his weakness of character can render.

There is not one stimulative thing about this plan. Just a bunch of warmed over big government goo and transfer payments. Any Republican that votes for this monstrosity ought to be figuratively shot. I am not so sure that the GOP Senators don’t need to expend what little political capital they have to actually block this thing. I think the American people will see this silly plan for what it is.

i don’t excuse what they’re doing - i also call it cowardice, as you do.

We all know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If I were an elected Republican, I would look around and observe that there is nothing much to lose through strong and principled opposition. I would also try and understand that the people who are with me now certainly won’t go away if I stand and fight, and might actually be made stronger. I would also take this opportunity to determine who was with me and who wasn’t on my own side, and act accordingly.

Sometimes being backed into a corner brings clarity and courage. Sometimes it brings cowardice. We’ll see what it brings Republicans.

still, he’s a daring fellow, willing to make surprising - and effective - moves. (e.g., breaking his promises on NAFTA and public financing, flipping his position on the Heller case, and even softening his position on Iraq - all in the course of one month at the start of the summer. Very bold, and very effective, to make his dash to the center as quick and as early as possible. No other candidate during 2008 would have tried such a thing. It helped that the media covered for him largely, but it was still risky - and savvy.)

so i’m not really disagreeing with you. i’m simply saying - let’s be prepared for both scenarios. the democrats always behaved as if pres. bush was a dummy, but he wasn’t, and it cost them over and over.

1. it’s a long way until the next congressional election and
2. his initiatives will pay them off with federal funds to their locality

after maybe 3-6 months - probably more like 6 months - republicans may start to group together more and start speaking up.

i hope they start standing up for principle right away, but when the majority is against you and it’s just after an election, the strong human tendency is to blow with the wind.

and even if we lose one conservative justice, there’s still a chance because breyer is not terribly sympathetic to the liberal version of the first amendment.

but if we lose two conservative justices, it’s definitely all over.

There was a guy I used to play tennis with who was pretty good. He beat most everyone he played, but he couldn’t beat me - and I am simply not te best tennis player. When he lost to me, he was a complete jerk. He was sure he was better than me (and he was), and he couldn’t understand why he was losing. The more frustrated he became, the more I taunted him, until he completely self-destructed.

I believe Obama has many, if not all, of the characteristics of my tennis opponent, and it won’t be long until the wheels come off IMO.

Not one single vote.

Maybe they don’t have to reimburse them but the law would violate the Constitution as a “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” I think this argument was successfully raised in the S&L crisis. If the feds alter the provisions of a mortgage contract, e.g., suspend payments or prohibit foreclosures, I think we’d hear a lot about impairing contracts.

“Second, for even a property right to require reimbursement, it has to pass certain requjirements.”

Correct. “Certain requirements” is state law defining what is or is not property.

But Air America proved that left-wing radio fails. If stations have to run an hour of left wing diarrhea responding point by point for every hour of the right wing standards, then they may have financial problems and have to start pulling right wing talkers.

Second, for even a property right to require reimbursement, it has to pass certain requjirements.

The high water mark for a takings lawsuit was a city requirement that all apartments be wired for cable TV.

Inverse condemnation occurs when the government takes ones property without just compensation. In my view, there would also be a claim for impairment of contract.

When the phony soldier incident occurred, Rush kept on expressing how the Reid letter was an attempt to ruin Rush’s business. Finally, a caller expressly raised the issue and Rush jokingly told him to shut up as that was the plan.

I don’t understand why these two claims are not used more frequently. For example, if I ran an eating establishment and they outlawed trans fats.

There are distinct advantages to these claims. First, the government cannot claim some kind of immunity. Second, the federal government is bound by state property laws. Third, damages are easier to prove: if Rush has a 5-year contract for 500 million and the feds put him out of business, the taxpayers are going to have to pay Rush that money. It’s not a bailout — they took away his livelihood.