4 ms·

>Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional That would require a very creative reading of the constitution. C

>Supreme Court could strike down the entire California coastal access law as unconstitutional That would require a very creative reading of the constitution. Congress could pass a law overriding it, and SCOTUS could could uphold that law under the commerce clause (land value in California affects land value in Oregon etc...).

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
From the last section of the Fifth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- tathougies 7y ago
  But, it was not taken. Khosla came to acquire the property well after the 1970s, which is when California law allowed the public to use all beaches.
- ronilan 7y ago
  Under the terms of the agreement Vinod “gatekeeper” Khosla, will maintain ownership of the newly established Martins Beach Surfing Club House and will be allowed to leave his board and wetsuit on the floor without penalty. The Friends of Martins Beach agree to release Khosla from all gatekeeping shifts, provided that he learns to surf and chill. Free surf lessons for life will be provided to Vinod “dude” Khosla as compensation for Club House use by the public. Drinks will be available, for a fee, to guests over the legal drinking age. Other fees may also apply. Done.
nofunsir 7y ago
John Locke would like a word with you.
- learc83 7y ago
  Did John Locke come back from the grave to include a relevant clause in the Constitution?
  - nofunsir 7y ago
    Did California?
    - learc83 7y ago
      If you want to explain how any of what you're talking about makes any sense, I'm all ears. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." California is one of those states, so unless you can show where the coastal access law is prohibited elsewhere in the constitution (and that prohibition has been incorporated), California has done nothing unconstitutional.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

From the last section of the Fifth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

tathougies 7y ago
But, it was not taken. Khosla came to acquire the property well after the 1970s, which is when California law allowed the public to use all beaches.
ronilan 7y ago
Under the terms of the agreement Vinod “gatekeeper” Khosla, will maintain ownership of the newly established Martins Beach Surfing Club House and will be allowed to leave his board and wetsuit on the floor without penalty. The Friends of Martins Beach agree to release Khosla from all gatekeeping shifts, provided that he learns to surf and chill. Free surf lessons for life will be provided to Vinod “dude” Khosla as compensation for Club House use by the public. Drinks will be available, for a fee, to guests over the legal drinking age. Other fees may also apply. Done.

nofunsir 7y ago

John Locke would like a word with you.

learc83 7y ago
Did John Locke come back from the grave to include a relevant clause in the Constitution?
- nofunsir 7y ago
  Did California?
  - learc83 7y ago
    If you want to explain how any of what you're talking about makes any sense, I'm all ears. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." California is one of those states, so unless you can show where the coastal access law is prohibited elsewhere in the constitution (and that prohibition has been incorporated), California has done nothing unconstitutional.