[Ait'al]

BTW when did emminent domain leave the grounds of the constitution and the concept of making a military port for the purpose of defense. If you dont know before september 11 when all polotics were distracted the biggest democratic + focus on bush was from his constant and sometimes silent pushes in times of eminent domain. They were at that time rumored to be pushing for impeachment and very harsh charges etc. If you dont know the concept that now somehow allows goverment to take land for public use, if im not mistaken, was originally from the executive power to take it on a federal lv for the purpose of defense, and then only sparingly and when in real need. Beyond that it directly violates the 4th or 6th ammendmant to use it for any other purpose, IE may not seize property without due process! (IE due proccess mean you must have a court/trial determin it. It also means you MUST have commited a crime to be brought to that court to begin with. You cannont have stuff taken away, based on federal law, without having commited a crime for them to take it away, basically based on repaying the court of police for the charges you incured to the government, like a tax if you will. correct me if im wrong.....)That one thing in the constitution was the ONE exception. Now they are useing as an excuse to violate the very bases of the constitution. Odd since it was probly seen as the safer lv of governent to put that power in since the very objective of the executive branch, and especially its head, is the upholdong of hte constitution and all of its concepts and the law in it based on its intent. Now its helping its abuse along, which by law intales neglect ignorance, and at any turn abuse! Any member of any position appointed or trusted etc, is immediatly responsible by law to be fully aware of all powers and responsibilities uppon the moment of there innaguration or appointment. Anything done against those powers is illegal without excuse and is either then said to be ignorance or neglect or both. All of which carry punishments as well as abuse. This could have been delt with easily in theory. If the government were truly prudent as bush always puts it. It would just be him they would be prudent against if they were to uphold the law and protect teh constitution from him.

On that comment in parrenthesis up there about due proccess... Any action inturn where property is taken without a crime having been commited is then an automatic determination of abuse of power, by the executive branch. In ll cases! And of the courts for not having shown it was and having those police, in normal cases, put in jail for having commited such a large offense. All circumstances, where that would happen, would by law automatically be vialolating many other laws, especially those of the constitution, by shear rule of how those laws are written and how theyre circumstances overlap each other.

On another note since this is commen. The bill of rights is not an exception, its the rule. And the very bases of how the design of the court system was determined internally etc. Its is the very bases of all design of the governemnt, and that design is crafted in the law, not in peoples good wishes.