The article deals with the State of Oregon’s claim that it owns the rain and hence can punish Oregonians for using rain water without permission. Oregon’s claim is specious: the Federal Government owns the rain as well as the air because both are involved in, and indeed necessary for, interstate commerce. If only Mr. Justice Roberts had considered that people are involved in interstate commerce no less than are water and air, he could doubtless have written a majority opinion upholding ObamaCare under the Commerce Clause.
If the government owns the rain and can punish you for using it without permission, shouldn’t it be liable for the damage its rain does?
Oregon is sending Gary Harrington to jail for 30 days and fining him $1,500 for collecting rainwater on HIS property – because the state says it has a law that gives it exclusive ownership of all water (including rainwater).
But, if the government owns the rain, shouldn’t it be held responsible for the damage it allows its rain to do? If I had a pit bull and allowed it to go around biting people, I’d be liable.
I’d always thought rain damage was considered to be an “Act Of God.” But, apparently, it’s being redefined as an Act Of Government.
So, shouldn’t the government have to compensate us for the damage its rain does? Every time…
View original post 215 more words