CH>SK>I have addressed my beliefs on the subject of commandeering to a
CH>  >point of redundancy. I'll explain it to you...I think that the
CH>  >surrendering of basic rights (in this case the right to own and
CH>  >keep personal property, and not surrendering it without due
CH>  >process) is paramount. Of course silly hypotheticals can be
CH>  >developed to make the case that my rights should be violated, but
CH>  >I won't submit or agree to such violations. The maintaining of
CH>  >basic rights is more important than hypotheticals. I'm
CH>The constitution (the source of your rights) does NOT guarantee that 
CH>your property will not be seized or commandeered.  It ONLY guarantees
CH>that your property will NOT be taken without just compensation.
SK> Please post that part in it's entirety. I'd sure like to see
SK>  it...considering it doesn't exist.
Here you go:
AMENDMENT V  (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due to be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
He is correct the Constitution says nothing about you
having the right to not have the government take your
property.  I checked twice.
                      Remember:  Freedom isn't Free!
--- timEd-B11
---------------