3 ms·

>> Can the CA govt just impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free I don't think so.

>> Can the CA govt just impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free I don't think so. Not currently. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" That's federal law. Supposedly, that applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. All of the sudden, once the Fourteenth Amendment is passed, the Constitution applies to state governments, not just the federal government. So if that's the case, no. You can't just "scoop up the assets for free" because you can't take private property for public use without compensation. I'm kinda a little bit suspicious that it makes sense to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment that way. Sounds like a power grab. If you want to try and turn that around, I know just the guys to do it.

rangestransform 2y ago
It’s not unconstitutional to make utilities liable for fires that their power lines ignite, and it won’t be a taking without just compensation if the actual value of the company drops below zero
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> It’s not unconstitutional to make utilities liable for fires that their power lines ignite That's not the question under consideration. The question under consideration is if it constitutional for the government to "impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free". Under my understanding of the law, no you can't do that, due to the takings clause and it's incorporation under the 14th amendment. I think the law should be different, I don't agree with incorporation doctrine. But I still don't think the government should impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.

rangestransform 2y ago

It’s not unconstitutional to make utilities liable for fires that their power lines ignite, and it won’t be a taking without just compensation if the actual value of the company drops below zero

rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> It’s not unconstitutional to make utilities liable for fires that their power lines ignite That's not the question under consideration. The question under consideration is if it constitutional for the government to "impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free". Under my understanding of the law, no you can't do that, due to the takings clause and it's incorporation under the 14th amendment. I think the law should be different, I don't agree with incorporation doctrine. But I still don't think the government should impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free. Hopefully that clears everything up for you.