Null



NolaAuTiger

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    5,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

NolaAuTiger last won the day on October 27 2018

NolaAuTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,619 Sterling

About NolaAuTiger

  • Rank
    Alumni

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ignore the facetious use of the term "dumb." Focus on the body of the OP - specifically the point re wealth tax being a "wash" absent proper amendment.
  2. Yeah, it's certainly interesting. I anticipate a legal challenge by Monday. However, I am not certain standing would be proper at this point. After the event, assuming plans do not change, a party could file suit and obtain that information via discovery. Nonetheless, I do believe other interested entities that were "on the list" are currently in the best position to challenge the decision to have the summit at Trump Doral. While such a challenge would not be rooted in the Constitution, there's arguably a basis to file a complaint due to the patent conflict of interest.
  3. What are the prerequisites in order to arrive at a constitutional violation in this regard? If accrual of profit - to the relevant conflicted business - is a prerequisite, yet the "event" is conducted at an all-cost basis, would that be fatal to the contention of a constitutional violation?
  4. Is this prospective violation contingent upon whether the G7 is conducted on an all cost basis vis-a-vis the interested entity?
  5. "There seems to be a slight problem with respect to the 'wealth tax' proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, one to which at least the latter, as a lawyer, should be sensitive. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits, among other things, the taking for public use of private property without just compensation. The amendment does not distinguish between real and personal property, so both are included in the prohibition. Thus, any individual whose wealth, or a portion thereof, has been 'taken' by the federal government would be entitled to commensurate compensation from the government, resulting in a wash. This result would apply even if the 'taking' is authorized by a vote of Congress and signed by the president, unless the Constitution is changed." Source: Dane A. Shrallow
  6. We should have a “constitutional convention” for the board. You, Me, Brad, and PT can be the drafters.
  7. No Rehnquist did not. You totally missed the issue. You also said the decision overturned a lower court decision, which is wrong: “They overturned a lower court that made your argument about the 5th Amendment. Read the case itself.” You may have pulled that out of your behind, but you certainly didn’t pull it from the case.
  8. You just spewed so much flagrant bs. You didn’t read jack squat.
  9. Lol! “I am using ‘criminal process’ as shorthand to describe any process that might deprive one from ‘life, liberty or property’ as stated above.”....uhhh???
  10. Homer, you keep reiterating “criminal process.” My goodness dude, due process isn’t restricted to “criminal process.” Brush up on your knowledge of the Bill of Rights buddy.
  11. What was I wrong about? Quit beating around the bush and confront my post head-on instead of pulling unjustified assumptions out of your anus.
  12. No offense buddy, but you think due process only applies to criminal procedure. You’re too far into left field to have this discussion with.
  13. You are not making any sense. In what way have I dodged or deflected? You are all talk and no substance whatsoever. Perhaps that’s what this forum is for.....