Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Detroit Land Grab

Expand Messages
  • k_r_johansen
    ... That s true. Laws are more or less easily changed though. My impression is that the US is far more decentralized and rigid in constitutional limits than my
    Message 1 of 395 , Sep 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
      >
      > Local option "variance" is a function of whether a state follows Dillon's rule or Cooley. These things are fixable but you have to know the laws. There a plenty of land taxers who erroneously believe that they can do anything they want or conversely think there are restrictions like dillon when they don't actual exist.
      >
      > Same is true with Understanding that personal exemption prohibition base on uniformity clause may be really hard to change because it involves changing a state constitution.
      >
      > Understanding the law, is just a necessary in Europe.


      That's true. Laws are more or less easily changed though. My impression is that the US is far more decentralized and rigid in constitutional limits than my little corner of Europe. These are actually good things, but the opportunity to do blanket changes nationally also has it's potential benefits (also we have effective party whips, so less need for horsetrading).
      As far as I understand it, a federal LVT would be nigh impossible in the US constitutionally, something to do with apportioning taxes between states etc.?

      Kj
    • roy_langston
      ... Which might be why I haven t done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn t a question of natural law, and I ve explained why residence defined as six months +
      Message 395 of 395 , Sep 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

        > The main point of resorting to natural law pronoucements of the kind you have bellowed is that they are supposed to help us determine what the various human-made laws SHOULD say. That is, if we have a question about know how some law should be constructed with respect to, e.g., who should receive various benefits and for how long or which protections of person or property must be enforced, or whatever, natural law claims are sometimes made--just as you have confidently made them in this context. It is, thus plainly circular to respond, when asked to specify the characteristics of some claimed natural law, "You'll have to consult the local legislature and courts--they'll tell us."

        Which might be why I haven't done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn't a question of natural law, and I've explained why residence defined as six months + reflects the relevant natural law principles.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.