Stopped at New Seasons for some dinner fixings and the young lady bagging my purchase saw my Pocket Edition in my breast pocket. See said, "Oh you've been reading the Constitution?" I asked her if she knew what day it was and she answered the "Anniversary of the signing of the Constitution?" She got her copy!

Its a great conversation starter.

I am Grant Remington, BOHICA seemed to fit after the 2004 election.

Make sure you read that part that says: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Actually, True Progressive, that quip applies only to the federal government. The due processes guaranteed in the Bill of Rights weren't applied to the state governments until ratification of the 14th amendment and even then not all guarantees were so applied. Restricting deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" was indeed applied to the state governments, but there is no mention of "just compensation" from a state government.

Regardless of how you or I feel about the issue, the Constitution simply doesn't take a stand on Measure 37.

Bake County Democrats are a financial sponsor here.

Publius:

Are you trying to tell us that the 14th Amendment does not extend to the 5th Amendment? How about the 1st? Is there explicit mention in the 14th Amendment that it extends the guarantees of the 1st Amendment to state governments?

Publius, are you actually asserting that the entire fifth amendment property "just compensation" clause has not been incorporated to apply to the states via the 14th amendment? That's not my understanding.

Additionally, I believe every state constitution contains a similar statement. Section 18 of the Oregon Constitution reads:

Private property shall not be taken for public use, nor the particular services of any man be demanded, without just compensation; nor except in the case of the state, without such compensation first assessed and tendered; provided, that the use of all roads, ways and waterways necessary to promote the transportation of the raw products of mine or farm or forest or water for beneficial use or drainage is necessary to the development and welfare of the state and is declared a public use.

Now don't get me wrong, this isn't a justification for Measure 37, which goes way beyond the private property rights jurisprudence. But, on the other hand, don't start arguing that the State of Oregon can come in and condemn my property for open space, not even allowing farming or timber cutting, without paying me for the property.

Stephanie V: Publius' comment above says that, by stating that the State of Oregon doesn't have to pay just compensation if it condemns someone's land.

Publius' comment above says that

No... I said that the U.S. Constitution didn't weigh in on that issue. Urban Planning Overlord correctly notes that the issue is further refined in the Oregon Constitution.

This post seems to be about the relevance of the U.S. Constitution, and that was the extent of my comment. That's why I said "Regardless of how you or I feel about the issue, the Constitution simply doesn't take a stand on Measure 37."

That's not my understanding.

Well, my comment would be ridiculously long to outline case history... but look at the Dred Scott case for an example of a pre-14th amendment due process with regards to federally-endowed rights. Then, look at Griswold and Casey for examples of how "substantive due process" matured through case law. The liberties guaranteed in the 1st, 3rd, 6th amendments, etc, become accepted as "substantive due process" and applied to the states as pat of the larger "due process" if not mentioned explicitly in #14. (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes begins to rail against what he saw as judicial activism in his Baldwin v. Missouri dissent, but tough luck for him.)

However, property rights are clearly discussed in the 14th amendment, to the exclusion of any mention of compensation. Which is why many states see fit to include a compensation clause in their own statutes or constitutions.

(PS: It has come to my attention that someone else has, in the past, posted as Publius. Not me. So I'll put a little 'John Jay' after the name from now on.)

Until it's updated, like every subsequent democracy has, to use proportional representation instead of "I got one more vote you all can go to hell", it will continue to creak and crack and show its age.

Ralph Nader (the Nader Nation, not him personally) could have taken 6 seats in the House for the last 25 years. I bet he'd change positions if someone offered a juicy contribution. Right. Can you imagine the difference? All you "money is the mother's milk of politics" types, he could have taken 6 seats and held them a quarter century, without spending a dime! Integrity is really, really cheap.

Americans don't understand how their government works, because it doesn't.

It's like basketball. Quintessentially American. It's a "non-contact sport". Except it isn't. Without accounting for the non-existent dimesnsion, you can't even play! That's why we have a lawyer vs. sceintist ratio problem. People don't grow up seeing systems that are logical and do what they purport to accomplish. They learn that the loudest, most obnoxious voice gets heard, it's easier to lie and ask forgiveness than to be honest, and that you have to watch out for #1 because no one else will.

That's what you get when you tell people that every vote counts, then give 100 million Americans zero satisfaction in the result and tell them it's the freest, most dedicated to democracy, country in the world. Does anyone remember the grade school versions of "how we're different than the Soviets", from the Cold War? Just exactly what was in those simplistic characterisations of the Soviets attempt to paint a veneer of democracy over a totalitarian state that is not a pefect description of life in America today?

If you have ANY doubts, look at Israel. Much more mature governmental process, until the voters decided they were being left out by not being able to vote directly for a President, instread of a party and their choosing the individual. Most of the banality in their politics, since the assisination, can be traced directly to this change.

Zoe Baird, best SG nominee ever, laid out multitudinous dimension to the problem and its effects in her meisterwerk, "The Tyrany of the Majority". "Life", AND a breathe of fresh air!

If Hillary promised to nominate her again for SG (or AG or SOD or ANYTHING) I would vote for her, and I did not think that was possible. Bottom line, yeah, it matters. Good values. Give 'em a chance by updating the engine to 21st century technology.

Ok, a day late but... It's my day with our godson. (He just turned 7.)

After exposing him to some vintage Beatles i pulled out my four page facsimile of We the People... He said it was cool! What more could a wonky uncle ask for? :)

Zarathustra: There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent individual states from instituting a "proportional representation" scheme, whether it be for the Presidential Electoral College votes in that state, or for House of Representatives positions, or for State Legislatures. For that matter there is nothing preventing a state from eliminating its Governor position and having a "Prime Minister" elected by the legislature just as is done in Great Britain and many other countries.

<h2>Stephanie V: Yes, there is quite a bit of contention as to what constitutes a "taking" of one's property. Suffice it to say that the opinion of the Oregonians in Action gang is at one extreme of the spectrum, and is not backed up by any significant recent constitutional rulings.</h2>