>> There certainly is no mention of "grandfathering" anything in the
>> Constitution.
>
>Well, I never have seen the word "grandfathering" in the Constitution
>either, but the Supreme Court rendered an opinion not more than 7 days
>ago which essentially said "you can't take action on the basis of a new
>law to retroactively enforce it" Read it, can't remember anything else
>except they found it to be a violation of I believe the 4th amendment.
>Hell to get old.
>Help?
>
>73
>
>Ed
All I am trying to say is if they pass a law today that says all towers must
have a building permit, as of now, the time the law went into effect, there
is nothing retroactive about prosecuting you for not having a permit on your
tower after the effective date of the law. True, you did not have a permit
last week before the law went into effect and they won't prosecute you for
that. That WOULD be retroactive . . .
How about this: Say they change the speed limit on the road in front of my
house from 35 to 25. Yesterday it was 35. Today it is 25. They will not
prosecute you for going 35 on it yesterday but you had better not try it
today. You would not get far arguing that you are "grandfathered at 35
since you have been doing it for years".
If they passed a tower law that said all NEW towers must have permits after
a certain date, I would say your OLD tower would be exempt (you could say
"grandfathered"). But if the law said "all towers" must have permits after
a certain date, I would say your old tower is included and must have a
permit after that certain date. But what counts is not what I say, but what
the Judge says . . .
Stan w7ni@teleport.com
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|