Personally I think that neither TRULY try to protect the Constitution, the Repubs just say that they do...that's why I'm deciding whether to change to another party...i.e. Libertarians or Constitutionalist...Anyways...what do you think?

CP

Let me choose "other." I'd say both parties do a halfway decent job of respecting the Constitution. Each has the parts they really like and the parts they really don't like, and there are parts they both like and parts they both don't like.

I chose "other" in regards that both try to uphold their interpretation of the Constitution. Perhaps I'll be followed with some heated replies but...IMO we need both parties to keep the other in check. It's the fine balancing act that helps to keep this nation from falling to the left or the right.

There are three parties dedicated to preserving the Constitution: The Libertarian Party (libertarian of course), The Constitutionalist Party (also libertarian, but brand new and may at this point consist of nothing more than a website) and the Constitution Party (conservative). All parties give it lip service of course, but IMHO those are the only ones that really care. Some individual Dems and Reps care too of course, but I'm speaking of the parties as a whole.

What I personally believe best protects the Constitution and ensures that it can do the job it was designed for -- to make sure that our limited government stays limited, to be the chains that bind down Leviathan -- is strict adherence to this standard: Not "interpretation" at all, but simply reading and applying the plain language of it at the time it was written, with reference to the original intent of the Founders, as preserved for us in the Federalist Papers. Anything that renders it flexible is a bad thing. Flexibility is ordinarily a good thing but not in the case of the leash on a powerful monster. That must always be strong and not elastic at all, lest the monster should escape its bonds and become our master instead of our servant. What prevents it from being brittle is the amendment process which should suffice for any changes that are truly necessary.

IMHO, and I realize this is very unmainsteam these days, any federal judge who does not follow that standard or something very similar is violating at least the spirit of their oath of office. What I find especially frustrating is that judges who do believe in that are precisely the ones that the Senate Dems have been filibustering. I am especially angry that they did it to Janice Rogers Brown, a black female libertarian whom I would have been very pleased to see make it to the Supreme Court. That of course is precisely what they were worried about.

With that in mind I'll amend my position on the Dems and Reps:

Reps = half-hearted fair weather defenders of the Constitution

Dems = sworn enemies of it

Only the three minor parties I mentioned at the beginning qualify as stalwart defenders.

I'd say, bottom line, is that the judicial branch, which is usually non-political, does a great job preserving the constitution. The political parties are doing what they do for power and judges do a good job of curbing their excesses.

AMF: I have no confidence that the Supreme Court can uphold the Constitution after their ruling for Affirmative action. And as Izdaari said, the only parties truly committed to protecting the Constitution are third parties.

CP

The democrats perhaps emphasize the bill of rights more. Focusing on the dream of equality for all peoples, as well as making sure that government benefits everyone, not just a select few. While one may disagree with how they would remedy those problems, I believe that many democrats look to the bill of rights as being of paramount importance(i.e.-amendments 1,3-8,14-17) While the "radical republicans" of the 1860s-80s could be seen to be "pro-government" they were "pro-rights" in terms of fighting for equality. I think many democrats see themselves as modern day Charles Sumners. The Greens probably take this to an extreme in my opinion. Libertarians would have our government back to what it was in 1795, and probably argue that any spending over $100 is an example of unconstitutional fraud. I respect their desire to limit government, but would we have a corporate-state instead? Who will check the power of industry? We had problems with that in the late 1800s, and it wasn't easy to overcome by any means. The Constitution Party? very pro-constitution, but they blur the church-state line too much for me. I like the idea of jury nullification, but once again, I don't want Judge Moore sitting in front of me!! Just personal thoughts here folks, nothing scientific.

Umm... Ok, I'm lost now. Which ruling on AA? A link would help here. Also an explanation as to why this one ruling means that all their other rulings that you like are null and void in your mind, since you've lost all confidence in the Supremes over that one ruling.

And, by the way, my posting mentioned the entire judicial branch, not just the one court during one period of time. Some folks back in the '50's also thought the Supremes overstepped with Brown v. Board of Education, but that ruling turned out to be right once the emotion of the day passed.

AMF: The ruling that allowed the U. of Michigan to continue raced based acceptances.
I never said that all the rulings are null and void. I said that I don't have much confidence in the Supreme Court...not all of their rulings are pointless.

CP

I really don't think either party gets up in the morning thinking "time to go out and defend the constitution"- and there are so many definitions and personal thoughts on this. When Jerry Falwell mentioned that he was starting a law college to "protect christianity and the constitution"- I about fell out of my chair laughing, since the two are mutually exclusive LOL- and Jerry Falwell is much more interested in a theocracy led by him than any kind of republic. But I have no doubt he actually believes what he is saying!

One of the best lines I heard was during the debate with Nut Getrich and the Contract on America vs Senator Byrd- he held up his pocket version of the constitution and said "here is my contract with America, right here"

I think the repubs pay the most lip service to it while doing the most damage (attempting to enforce "God" this and that in pledges and the like, drug laws, siezure laws, "homeland insecurity") in fact, if you look at real loss of basic rights for your average american, they all have come from the repub party.

In my opinion the constitution was nearly completely disgarded in Lincoln's time, in his effort to hold the union together. The southern states had every constitutional right to leave, not to mention Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus etc...

For me its not a question of who preserves it better, but one of who consults it at all...and I think both parties are guilty in this instance

Out

The Constitution was written for a time when voting was for the privileged few, slavery was accepted, and the fragile new country was in fear of tyrants taking their property and taxing them. It is laughable how the Supremes, over the years, read the same document and conclude different meanings that fit the current mood of the people or/and their own personal political beliefs.

A liberal judge will soon read it and "see" that a person can legally smoke dope. A conservative judge will soon read it and "see" that homosexual marraige should not be allowed. There is much "seen" in the Constitution, that is not there.

The writers of it did a remarkable job in forming the basis of a new and freer country than any of them had known before. I wonder what they would think of us still using it today. Probably laugh their long-socks off. We should have moved on by now, dropped it in the shredder and written a new one that fits the times.

I know that in Colorado the state court overturned a Republican redistricting push that went through in the last few minutes of last year's state legislature session.

The redistricting was ruled unconstitutional.

Then there's the infamous Amendment 2 that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Seems to be a pattern here with Colorado Republicans.

What about Bush's partial birth abortion ban? That'll likely be ruled unconstitutional.

And I bet faith-based welfare gets the SC bump too.

Whatever. My vote is for the Demos.

It's amazing to me how people criticize Lincoln for his radical actions, while completely disregarding the fact that southern sympathizers were busy trying to subvert the democratic process in various states. Was Lincoln supposed to just sit back and let it happen?? Extreme circumstances require extreme actions. I don't believe he tore the constiution up, the state of South Carolina did that when they chose to give up on the American dream after the election.

Maybe it's not R's vs. D's on this topic. I'm rethinking my position here.

Maybe it's really literalists vs. realists. Literalists think they have to "defend" their strict reading of a document they believe in... like the Constitution or the Bible. Realists -- for lack of a better term -- are willing to allow the real-world experiences and the latest social fads to influence their interpretation. I'm probably using the wrong terms here for them, but I think there's a pattern here to be discerned between those who believe that both documents are literal and unchanging and those who are open to adjustments based on present-day needs.

Or am I just making something up?

Lincoln didn't necessarily 'tear the constitution up," but he certainly read far more into it than what is really written there. This is not a personal attack on Lincoln at all either, I am simply stating that his interpretation of "inherent constitutional powers" was outside the documents original intent.

All power not granted to the Federal government according to the constitution lies under state control, this includes the right to leave the Union. Lincoln thus was suppressing constitutional rights by waging a war to keep the Union together.

As for his suspension of Habeas Corpus, this is simply inexcusable. It wasn't even suspended in the existing rebel states, but in Maryland to keep the confederate forces there from taking control of the state, and thus saving Washington as the Union capital. Violating basic rights, of citizens no less, certainly seems to me to be unconstitutional.

The fact that Lincoln was Republican holds little importance to me, from that point onward with a few rare exceptions the constitution in its original intent has largely been ignored or invoked on whims, and seems to hold no real authority anymore...

Out

There is only one person in Washington that truly does their best to protect and preserve the Constitution - his name is Ron Paul.

- Rick

I thought you might find this interesting...



- Rick

Rick: Who fired the first shot of the Civil War ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who best defends the Constitution: The ACLU, they are Liberals, Democrats are Liberals , therefore the answer has to be the Democrats.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who destroyed our Constitutional Freedom and Law more than anyone.

The Conservative Supreme Court of 1886, which ruled A Corporation has the same rights as a Citizen. This ruling opened the door for Corporate buying of every election ever since.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one provision in the Constitution that everyone and in particular Conservatives,wants to overlook and one which is vital to the common man,is
"Provide for the General Welfare of the Country"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is often perceived as Federal interference in States Rights, is nothing more than insuring States do not violate Constitutional rights of all its citizens in particular Minorities. Such as Poll Taxes, and literacy test. And things such as Separate but equal which violates the issue of "Race ,Creed,and Color" .

The Civil Rights Act, passed by LBJ and the Democratic Congress in the late 1960's ,was an enforcement of Constitutional rights for all citizens, in all States, Republicans have never came close to any such effort at enforcing Constitutional rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opposition to the Civil Rights act in the south is why they all changed from Democrat to Republican. My point is proven, Democrats uphold the Constitution more so than Republicans or any other ineffective group other than the ACLU.

I Like Ron Paul.

That particular clause is under heavy debate elsewhere on this site.
And the defenders of the Constitution the Democrats desecrate that Act everytime they give a pro-Affirmative Action speech.

CP

I think that all legislators tend to push the envelope and see how far they can go without being called on violating the Constitution, especially when adding all kinds of "pork" to previously acceptable amendments in order to push through pet projects.

'Crats and 'Publicans are equally culpable.

As far as Lincoln goes, when martial law is declared, a whole bunch of individual rights go by the wayside with the view to preserving the government. That's also what has happened under the Patriot Act, to the point of holding citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing them to see an attorney.

There is no real difference between the two parties. They may define it different and use different slogans but both want complete control over everyone.
Neither flavor of RepubLicrats preserve the Constitution. Both have raped and abused it for their own gain. They both dream of empires.



Man I am just in a Negative mood today

Who do you think is more interested in protecting the Constitution?

When you think of the fundamental role of a political party, it is clear that neither party is interested in protecting the Constitution.

The primary goal of any political party is to elect their members to office. If nobody from a party gets elected, nobody from the party has power. If nobody from the party has power, the party's agenda cannot be advanced.

These days, it appears as though the Constitution is an afterthought for the major parties. In their own efforts to gain power, they ignore the Constitution and follow the dollar.

Take for example my (soon to be 'former') party. Not only are they not following the Constitution, but they aren't even following the platform under which they earned my vote.

Let us look at a few issues: AIDS in Africa, Homeland Security, Immigration policy, and Prescription Drug Entitlements.

According to my conservative take on the Constitution, none of what my own party has passed is legal.

AIDS in Africa. Here, the government promised...what...$90 Billion to help fight AIDS in Africa. $90 Billion divided by 200 Million taxpayers = $450 each. I've read the Constitution quite a few times, and nowhere did I see anything about each citizen forking over a percentage of their income for the benefit of non-Americans. This doesn't even come close to falling under general welfare.

Homeland Security. What is this? What do they do? We have a Department of Defense. If they are not defending the Homeland, what exactly do they claim to be defending? The government must provide for the common defense. I do not see why we need two dedicated security organizations to secure one country. The "big government" Republicans are not conservatives. They are not faithfully executing the duties of their office, and they are not protecting the Constitution of the United States of America.

Immigration policy. The law is fairly straight forward-- it is illegal to enter the US illegally. This is the equivalent of saying that it is wrong to rob a bank, but you can keep the money if you get away with it. Being in America is a privilege. Those who cannot earn the privilege do not deserve the privilege. Either way, placing the 'Hispanic vote' above the security and safety of our Country is surely contrary to the Constitution's intentions.

Prescription Drugs Entitlement. Again, I've read the Constitution, and nowhere did I see the part about taking a percentage of my income and distributing it to those who are in need. Yes, grandma may need prescription drugs, but I may need food. And there may be people with AIDS in Africa that I may determine are more worthy of the money. Either way, it is not Constitutional in my eyes. Let me spend my money as I choose.

There seems to be a big-bang of government going on lately, and the Republicans seem to be launching studies on how to deliver oxygen directly to the flame. Democrats, don't think you're not responsible, either. I don't like most of your programs, too.

So, in summary, both parties couldn't care less about the Constitution.

Mike

I think that about covers it. I'm not what you describe as a Literalist about the Bible, but I certainly am about the Constitution. I believe the primary purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of government, to in effect be the chains that bind down Leviathan and prevent government from becoming our master instead of our servant. If it is a "living document" whose meaning we continually rediscover, than it is too flexible to serve as a paper leash on the monster that is government, the greatest potential threat to our liberties. For the Constitution to be effective as a restraint on government, it must be read literally and applied as written, not interpreted. When what it says no longer meets with our approval or no longer seems to meet today's needs, well, that's what the Amendment process is for.

You need to understand better what "Due Process of Law " means.

Your private property, is what you are really arguing about. Your money, your land. The Constitution gives Congress the right to lay and collect Taxes, they have the right to spend money by Due process of law.

Ever hear of" Emminent Domain" They can take your property for the common good.

Every one of your Rights under the constitution can be taken from you with Due Process of law. Thats why our Prisons are full.

Affirmative Action: I think if the same people who complain about it, had raised their voice when Discrimination was the rule, it would never have had to implemented. How harmful is it really. One minority person in 100 has to be hired or admitted to school.

Do you think G W Bush got into Harvard Business School on his academic record, or was it some sort of Affirmative Action from his daddy.

Excuse me?

Please re-review the Constitution and cite the section that states anything about "due process." Simply put-- there is none. Due process rights are extracted from the Constitution, but the Constitution certainly does not expressly create "due process."

Eminent Domain (as spelled properly) has nothing to do with "the common good." Anyone with a dictionary can confirm that for me. Eminent Domain refers to the government's ability to condemn and confiscate property for purposes they deem absolutely necessary. There is no requirement of "common good" of which I am aware, and even if there is, the Eminent Domain laws are regularly abused by the politically powerful.

Our prisons are not full because the government has the right to deny us our rights. Our prisons are full because the Constitution has not been followed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to limit what substances a citizen ingests. As it is not specified in the Constitution, the ability to ban substances should be passed on to the states.

Why then, may I ask, do we have federal drug statutes? Why do we have a "drug war" and why do we have a "drug czar?" The reason is that politicians, of all political persuasions, need power to build power. If the Constitution were truly applied, the SCotUS would have no choice but to strike down federal drug laws, and federal mandatory minimum laws. They would be forced to pass the determination of rights back to the states, as originally intended.

As for affirmative action, you really should reevaluate your statements. You claim that the time to speak out against affirmative action was when "Discrimination was the rule." You then go on to say, "How harmful is it really. One minority person in 100 has to be hired or admitted to school. "

You have disproved your own point-- affirmative action is federally-enforced discrimination. According to your own logic, you must speak out against affirmative action. Affirmative action is the law, laws are rules, and so discrimination is currently the rule.

Additionally, can you point out the portion of the law that specifically determines the minimum racial composition of an organization? Of course you can't-- it doesn't exist.

Lastly, suggesting that the current president was admitted to a school because of family connections and then claiming it was affirmative action displays a fundamental misunderstanding of affirmative action, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Please try to answer the actual question to debate, which is:

Who do you think is more interested in protecting the Constitution?

Mike

I find it very illuminating that you skip the 2nd amendment, which is clearly part of the bill of rights in the above statement.

Your statement leans itself to what many have said here. Neither party seeks to preserve the consitution, just their vision of it. Both will twist the language of the consitution to support their positions, completely ignoring the intent of the founding fathers as are clearly evident in the federalist papers.



This happens all the time. It can be seen as a form of affirmative action, but it is equally applied. MANY people both Democrats and Republicans get into major schools this way. Colleges have always leaned towards the children of alumni. I don't think it's right, but it is not limited to any one group.

I agree. You can't say you defend the Constitution, except for...



It is, indeed, a form of Affirmative Action, definied as giving someone preference over something arbitrary, having nothing to do with academic performance. The key distinction, though, is whether it is happening at a public or private institution.

Private institutions, by their nature, have every right to discriminate. If they want to accept someone because their daddy has money, they are black, or have freckles, as a private business they have the right to do so. This is because they have freedom of association. A public institution does not have this right.

Our government, and its institutions, are bound by the Constitution, which says that the government does not have the freedom of association. It has the duty and obligation to look at every citizen equally before the law, which means they cannot give preference to students of color, whether that color is black or green.

- Rick

I beg your pardon Mike, but please refer to the 5th and 14th Amendment on Due Process.

Eminent Domain: It is and never was an issue of "Absolutely Necessary" your very misinformed on all of this. When a power company wishes to erect a Tower for an Electrical transmission line, they use Eminent Domain to get around the Farmers refusal to allow it, its not even a Government Issue, its the Common Good of power distribution.


Prisons and Drug laws: Again you fail to comphrehend what the Constitution really is, it was not written to include every rule and law deemed necessary by a Nation, its back to Due Process of Law, the States and the Fed can pass any law they want, so long as it does not violate the Constitution. Simply put, they have a right to "Regulate Commerce" whether it be Cocaine or Soy beans or Cotton or Hemp.

Affirmative Action: I mention G W Bush and Harvard to point out , that Qualification and SAT scores have not been the criteria of admissions to Universities for many years. That argument is one all the anti Affirmative action opponents like to use.

Affirmative action is a broad and difficult subject, I am both for and against some of the issues, freedom of association being one. The point I have tried to make is had the Constitution been upheld in the first place Affirmative action would never have been necessary. It was made necessary by Discrimination.

I will try to keep on topic.

I'm pretty sure that the ACLU are composed of Civil Libertarians, which does not mean that they are liberals, libertarian, yes, liberal, not necessarily. And not all liberals are Democrats.Surely you agree that Conservatives are supporters of civil rights as of now.

CP

I'm not trying to be adversarial here, but what is your opinion on the debate topic? Mine is perfectly clear-- yours is missing. Are you claiming that political parties all preserve the Constitution?

The fifth Amendment does assert that we have a right to due process, but it does not assert what constitutes due process. That is my point. Without it clearly spelled out in the Constitution, the right to due process must be passed along to the states. The SCotUS is not a legislative body. Miranda vs. Arizona is not law-- it is case law. That means "legislating from the bench." As the determination of due process not been passed to the states, the only conclusion can be that the state's authority to enforce the 4th amendment has been superseded by the federal government's desire to control. This is against the Constitution in both letter and spirit.

According to your logic, a power company can confiscate my land without government involvement. That is wrong.

I have a client who works for the county. He condemns property. There is a road project here called the Truman Parkway-- locals refer to it as the Truman Driveway because it has taken nearly a decade to complete a 10 mile stretch of road. Part of the hold up has been the county's inability to secure the necessary property for the project.

Anyway, according to my customer, when the government needs your land, they are going to get it. He claimed that he has had many perfectly good homes condemned simply to push through the public project.

Even in this case, where misapplication of condemnation laws seems evident, the government must go through the condemnation process.

Another case in point. There is a small town in Northern Illinois called Elburn. It is ideally located about 50 miles to the west of Chicago. As Chicago is one of the largest rail hub in the nation, freight rail is important.

Approximately 4 years ago, there was a big discussion over whether or not the railroads should be allowed to create a depot in Elburn. It would have meant hundreds of trains going through the town on a daily basis, as well as thousands of semi trucks. The railroad asserted that Eminent Domain allowed them to claim the land and build the depot-- it was necessary to maintain interstate trade. The government struck it down after the public made their opinion known.

If Eminent Domain is as you suggest, the railroad had the right to simply confiscate the land and build what they deemed necessary. The county and state government were miraculously able to block the installation of the depot, even though there was a heavy lobby to help push it through.

These are two real world examples that prove that Eminent Domain is clearly an issue whose feasibility is determined by government on a project by project basis. Please provide an example of a power company simply showing up to install a transmission tower in a farmer's field without prior notification and governmental permits. It doesn't happen.

Also according to your logic, the feds can regulate commerce. The word that was left out was "interstate." Recent case law has challenged the fed's assertion that they can regulate commerce between the states, thereby upholding Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. The fed's regulation of intrastate trade is against the Constitution, both in letter and spirit.

So, what if someone gives drugs away? No money changing hands, no commerce. See, the right to self-intoxicate is not clearly spelled out in the Constitution. As a result, the determination of those rights are to be passed on to the states. The use of the Constitution to bypass states rights for political gain does not preserve the Constitution, either in letter of in spirit.

This is a perfect example of a political party ignoring the Constitution for political gain. The Constitution does not grant us any rights. Rights cannot be granted by a piece of paper. Either you have them, or you don't. The Constitution merely preserves them.

The Constitution is a limiting document. It is meant to limit the power of government, not the rights of citizens.

As for affirmative action, I made a solid point that apparently cannot be disputed. Affirmative action is a law of continued discrimination. Failure to speak out about the discrimination being leveled today in favor of correcting discrimination of the past clearly places the Constitution to the back. Thank you.

Mike

Hello Mike, I have been away for a few days, so I am late in responding to your post, that was directed to me. PP.

I am not trying to be adversarial either, in so far a the debate topic I stated clearly I thought the Democrats upheld the Constitution more so than Republicans.
Other groups do so more than either, but since they are not and have not been in position politically to sway interpretation or enforcement one way or the other I did not count them.

My thinking on the subject is simply this, Republicans support State Rights more than Democrats, mostly the issue is Southern States rights to discriminate. While Democrats uphold the individuals Constitutional rights, over the rights of States.
Idividual Rights is what the Constitution is all about.

I made no case that "Eminent Domain" can be used only by a Power Company without government involvement, or any other Private cause. The cases you site have failed because they are not for the Common Good, much the same as a case challenged by a friend of mine, Power Company wanted to erect towers on his land , the State and Power company claimed "Eminent Domain", he challenged and won because the Transmission line did not provide for the Common good of the people in the State, the line was going out of state, much the same as the Rails and Depot you mention.

"Interstate" Intrastate" I agree with what you say, but this argument has been tried and failed, but I agree with your thinking, but if any part of that which you wish to consume was created by Interstate trade, they can regulate it, if you grow hemp, did the seed come from Maui, did the shovel for cultivation come from China, or did the hydro equipment come from out of state. You have a valid point, and I agree with you, but what the fed cannot regulate they force the States to do it or face the loss of Federal Funds for a host of projects.

You also state that one political party is by- passing states rights for political gain, I assume you mean the Democratic Party, and the civil rights law, now I ask what makes you think any of this is for Political gain, and not just the proper administration of the law of the land, when it comes to the rights of citizens guaranteed under the constitution. There is no State Right, that supersedes the rights of citizens granted to them under the U S Constitution.

I don't really agree with Affirmative action anymore than I agree with Busing school children, both laws and acts have been challenged time and again, so one must assume it is legal under the law and constitution.

I am not trying to be disagreeable, just presenting a different view in a debate type situation, which is what a debate is all about, debate.

I believe that you have hit the nail on the head with this one. Many people forget that there is more than one kind of interpretation of the constitution. Not even the founders were united on that one. You've portrayed both sies very well and have defined what each of them believes to be constitutional. The topic question is-who defends the constitution more? One's opinion on this matter depends upon the political party and their interpretation of it. I'm not sure any particular one is more valid than other.

Mike

"The fifth Amendment does assert that we have a right to due process, but it does not assert what constitutes due process. That is my point. Without it clearly spelled out in the Constitution, the right to due process must be passed along to the states."

Since none of the powers the Federal Government is really spelled out in the Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, are you saying the Constitution in affect doesn't exist?

One of my favorite examples is the Air Force. Try as you might, you'll not find anything spelled out in the Constitution about it. Does this mean we should pass this along to the states?

Another example is the USSC has the power to mitigate disputes between the states. However, no where in the Constitution does it spell out laws to be used in doing so leaving us with a conundrum, a court that must adjudicate but with no laws to do so. Once again, is this to be left to the states?

In fact the framers debated long and hard over whether the Constitution should be a general document or one of specifics. The result of this debate was a compromise, something's are general and some are specific. Those that are general are left to future generations to define and redefine. Due process is just one of them and over time the nature of Due Process has changed and we, as a country, have changed with it.

"According to your logic, a power company can confiscate my land without government involvement."

Can you not challenge such an act in the courts? Is that not government involvement? Granted it is indeed unfairly weighted in favor of the Utilities but then again, the ability to provide power throughout the country falls well within the doctrine of eminent domain. Would you prefer that one person can either deny power to his neighbors or raise the cost of power due to forcing redirection of a power line?

If you say the system is imperfect I'll rush to agree with you but you know what, humanity is imperfect and trying to design a perfect system for them is impractical.