Tulloch Rule (Wetlands)
Langrrr at aol.com
Langrrr at aol.com
Mon Jan 18 23:29:41 EST 1999
In article <36a3d885.0 at news.pacifier.com>,
dhogaza at pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> In article <780fh2$j4c$1 at nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Langrrr at aol.com> wrote:
> >In article <369fde49.0 at news.pacifier.com>,
> > dhogaza at pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> >> One agency of government expanding regulation beyond the boundary
> >> set by law (in other words, this is not a Constitutional property rights
> >> case
> >2) When Government agencies expand their power beyond what is prescribed by
> >Congress, that is a constitutional issue. It is a separation of powers issue
> >which goes to the heart of our system of government. When that enlargement
> >of powers implicates the use of private property, it becomes a property
> >rights issues as well.
> >In fact, the American Mining Congress, which
> >originally filed this case, brought it as an issue of Constitutional property
> And it was not ruled on as a 5th Amendments takings issue (which is
> what I meant by describing it as not being a Constitutional property
> rights case).
It wasn't filed as a takings case, therefore it couldn't be ruled on as a
takings case. It was a regulatory challenge.
But only someone with a limited knowlege (and thus view of the situation)
would say that a challenge to a land-use regulation arising out of a
situation such as this is not a Constitutional Property Rights case.
> Really, Andrew, a ruling that a federal agency exceeded its authority
> under a law passed by Congress does not break new Constitutional ground.
Never said that it did. It is always refreshing, however, when the courts
rule that the government has overstepped its bounds. In fact, it goes to the
very heart of what this nation is all about.
- Andrew Langer
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
More information about the Ag-forst